Post insights

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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: these are lifetime (not windowed) numbers, story insights expire after 24 hours, and a 5-viewer threshold applies. It does not describe response shape or any rate limiting, keeping it short of 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 sentences, front-loaded with the returned metrics and followed by the invocation rule and the story caveat. The long metric enumeration is dense but each item is informative, and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly by listing the metric set and the per-type additions. Remaining gaps — account scoping (covered by schema) and any pagination or truncation behavior — are minor for a read-only metrics tool.

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%, with media_ids carrying no schema description at all; the description compensates by explaining that media_ids targets specific posts and that omitting them falls back to recent posts. It also clarifies that the metrics differ by media type, which affects what the agent can expect per ID. It does not explain the media_ids array cap or the latest/account interplay beyond defaults.

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 resource (media insights) and enumerates exactly which metrics come back for posts, reels, and stories, so the agent knows precisely what this returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as analyze_post, get_account_insights, or export_insights, leaving some ambiguity about which insight tool to pick.

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?

"Give media_ids, or omit them for the latest posts" gives a clear selection rule for the optional parameter, and the 24-hour/5-viewer note tells the agent when story data will be unavailable. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of analyze_post or get_account_insights, so usage is only implied.

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