get_shares

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read-only operation and specifies the output includes total shares and platform breakdown, but it does not mention potential behavior such as response format, pagination, sorting, or rate limits. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and includes a useful output summary. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with two optional, well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool does and what the response contains (total shares and platform breakdown). It lacks an explicit return type, but the overall context is complete enough for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema already covers both parameters (days and limit) with descriptions and defaults, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, but given full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a distinct resource ('social share data for posts from Parse.ly'), and further clarifies it shows total shares and breakdown by platform. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_referrers or get_analytics_posts, which focus on other analytics dimensions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: use it when you need social share counts for posts. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_analytics_posts or get_referrers, nor any exclusions or alternative recommendations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.