Insights report

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, non-destructive, non-openWorld). The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it emits progress during scanning, conditionally includes audience-quality metrics only if followers were scanned, and carries a PRO entitlement gate.

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?

Front-loads the action and keeps everything in two dense sentences with no filler. The metric list is long but each item is informative rather than redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned metrics and their conditional inclusion. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior when no scan exists yet.

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 100%, so both params are already documented. The description adds only marginal meaning — implying username must be the account passed to insights_collect — so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Read an insights_collect scan") and enumerates the concrete outputs (engagement, best times, heatmap, top posts, trends, follower growth). It clearly distinguishes this reporting tool from the sibling insights_collect that performs the scan.

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?

Implicitly routes the agent to use this after running insights_collect, and states a precondition ("Requires INSSIST PRO"). However it never explicitly says when-not to use it or names the alternative scan trigger beyond the implicit pairing.

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