Get post performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some behavioral context about the response composition (derived rates plus raw snapshots) but does not disclose potential volume or ordering of snapshots. This is moderate value beyond 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?

A single, 14-word sentence that front-loads the action ('Return') and precisely describes the output. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the return composition but lacks details about identifier semantics and response structure. Given the missing output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 only parameter 'identifier' has 0% schema coverage, and the description merely hints it is a post identifier ('for one post') without specifying format, type, or how to obtain it. Since the description must compensate for the lack of schema documentation, it falls short.

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 it returns performance data for a single post, specifying the exact output: 'latest derived performance rates plus every stored raw metric snapshot.' This verb-action structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_post' and 'record_metric_snapshot'.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (need performance metrics for one post) but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools. It provides clear context without naming alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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