threads_get_account_insights

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantive behavior: the required threads_manage_insights permission, Meta's default window (yesterday through today), the earliest supported timestamp, and the null-versus-0 distinction between missing data and a measured zero. Those are exactly the traits an agent cannot derive from the schema or 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?

Front-loads purpose and permission in the first clause, then groups prerequisites, parameter rules, and return-value semantics into short scannable sentences. Every line carries information not available elsewhere; nothing is padding.

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 read-only insights tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the auth gate, input conventions, and even the meaning of aggregate fields (period totals for likes/replies/reposts/quotes/clicks, followers_count ignoring the period). No gap remains that would cause a mis-call.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it does: since/until are Unix seconds with since < until, both optional for a default range, minimum 1712991600, plus where account_id comes from. This matches the schema's minimum constraint and adds the ordering rule the schema cannot express.

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 and resource ('Read the connected account's insights') and immediately scopes it against the obvious sibling by noting that views are daily PROFILE views, 'not post views', separating it from threads_get_post_insights. The permission requirement is stated up front, so an agent knows what capability gates the call.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisite routing ('Get account_id from threads_list_accounts') and clear parameter-usage rules including the omit-both default range. It stops short of naming the post-level sibling as the alternative when profile metrics are not wanted, so the when-not guidance is inferential rather than explicit.

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