get_post_engagement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully clarifies that types return different entities (users vs. quote posts), but says nothing about rate limits or pagination behavior despite pagination params existing.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the type breakdown.

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 read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is mostly sufficient. However, pagination (pagination_token / max_results) and the return shape are not addressed, and no output schema exists to offload them.

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?

Schema coverage is 60%, so the description needs to add value. It does clarify the semantics of the 'type' enum (repotted_by returns users, quotes returns quote posts), but leaves account, max_results, and pagination_token to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('get post engagement') and immediately clarifies the three modes it returns. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_posts or get_timeline.

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 by 'who engaged with a post' rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named, but the intent is inferable from the description.

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