reddit get insights

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: empty results only validate transport, and reported audience demographics differ from configured targeting. Those two caveats materially change how an agent interprets results. It stops short of noting pagination termination or whether missing fields error out vs. return nulls.

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?

Three sentences, no padding, and the capability statement is front-loaded ahead of the two caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the behavioral caveats are covered. However, for an 8-parameter, 4-required reporting tool whose sibling set includes both schema-discovery tools and entity listers, the description omits the discovery prerequisite and the routing logic an agent needs to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (limit, cursor, endsAt, fields, filter, startsAt, breakdowns, adAccountId) is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'explicit UTC dates and pagination' restates schema content without adding syntax or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 capability: native Reddit reporting returning metrics plus entity/audience breakdowns. It is clear what the tool retrieves, but it never distinguishes itself from reporting-adjacent siblings, and there is no explicit statement that this is ad-account-level performance data rather than an entity listing.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, even though the 'use reddit_get_reporting_schema for supported fields; never guess names' prerequisite exists only inside the schema parameter text. An agent must infer that it should call the schema tool first and that a plain campaign listing should use reddit_get_campaigns instead.

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