Get Content Insights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable context beyond that: it discloses the account availability constraint and explains that the return value is a dict with raw text sections that the LLM must parse. This is critical behavioral information for the agent, covering what to do with the output. No contradiction with annotations.

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 efficiently structured with clear headings for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value, including the account availability note. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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-only tool with one user-facing parameter and an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, account requirements, parameter options, and return format structure. The main gap is that it does not list specific metrics contained in the content performance data, but that is left to the output schema and the LLM's parsing instructions. This is adequate, though not exhaustive.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates fully for time_range by listing allowed values ('7d, 30d, 90d') and default ('30d'). This gives the agent explicit options. The ctx parameter is mentioned in the description though not in the schema, which might be confusing, but it's clearly an internal context parameter. Overall, the description adds meaningful parameter semantics.

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 clearly states 'Get content performance insights from Professional Dashboard,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_business_insights and get_audience_insights by focusing on content performance specifically. The note about Business/Creator accounts adds contextual scope.

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 provides a clear context for when the tool is applicable: 'Professional Dashboard is only available for Business and Creator accounts,' which implies an exclusion for other account types. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for other insight types, so while the purpose is clear, the guidance is not fully explicit about alternatives.

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