Benchmark another account

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so the description needn't restate safety. It adds genuinely useful behavior: only PUBLIC stats are retrievable, the target must be a Business or Creator account, and the source is Meta's Business Discovery API (implying authorization requirements on the connecting account). It stops short of mentioning rate limits or failure modes for ineligible targets.

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 dense sentence front-loads the resource and metric list, followed by a short routing sentence and a constraint. No filler, though the metric enumeration is a packed run-on that is slightly harder to scan than a structured list.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so well by naming the metric families returned. For a 3-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only the `posts` sampling parameter and error behavior on ineligible accounts are left to inference.

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 67%: `account` and `username` are documented in the schema, so the description earns no credit by repeating 'their @username'. The one undocumented parameter, `posts` (default 30, range 5–100), is never explained in the description — an agent gets no hint that this controls the sample window behind the medians. Baseline 3 for partial coverage.

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 names the exact mechanism (Meta's Business Discovery) and enumerates the returned metrics — followers, posting frequency, format mix, median likes/comments/views, engagement per follower, top hashtags, top posts — so an agent knows precisely what 'benchmark' means here. It also distinguishes itself from get_account_insights by framing this as competitor/public data versus 'your own'.

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?

It explicitly routes the complementary action to get_account_insights and states a hard eligibility constraint ('Facebook Login accounts only'), plus the target restriction to Business or Creator accounts. It lacks explicit when-not guidance (e.g. what happens for personal accounts) but the context is clear enough to select the tool.

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