Audience demographics

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive open-world call, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely new behavior: a 100-follower eligibility threshold and a hard cap of the top 45 values per breakdown returned by Meta, both of which affect how the agent interprets results. It does not say what an empty or under-threshold response looks like, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with the substantive content front-loaded: what the data is, then the constraints. There is no filler, though the parenthetical '(or the people who engaged)' slightly interrupts the opening clause.

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 five optional parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is only partially sufficient. It handles eligibility, dimensions, and the 45-value cap well, but omits the timeframe window semantics and gives no hint of the response shape (per-breakdown lists of values with shares), which the agent must infer.

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 only 20% (only 'account' is documented in the schema), so the description must carry weight. It does add meaning for 'who' (followers vs. people who engaged), 'breakdowns' (the four named dimensions), and 'top' (implied by the 45-value cap), but it never mentions the 'timeframe' parameter or its this_week/this_month options, leaving one of five parameters unaddressed in both places.

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 specific resource (follower/engaged-audience demographics) and enumerates the dimensions returned: age, gender, country, city, expressed as percentage shares. This is far more concrete than the title alone and lets an agent distinguish it from the broader insight tools. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tools it is not (e.g., get_account_insights).

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 supplies a real precondition — 'Needs at least 100 followers' — which tells the agent when the call will fail, and implies usage for audience analysis. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance against get_account_insights or get_media_insights, and no statement of when to prefer 'engaged' over 'followers'.

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