get_post_insights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation via 'Statistiques' but discloses nothing about rate limits, what null metrics returns, valid metric values, or authentication requirements. It is not misleading, but it adds almost nothing beyond the tool's core function.

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 front-loaded, zero-waste sentence. The core function is stated first and the parenthetical adds useful specificity without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 (2 params, output schema present), so return-value documentation can be carried by the schema. However, with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the description leaves real gaps: metrics semantics, when-to-use routing against insight siblings, and any safety profile. It is minimum viable with clear gaps.

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 compensate, but it merely lists example stat types (reach, clicks, reactions) without explicitly tying them to the metrics parameter, explaining post_id format, or clarifying the null default. The hint is marginally useful but leaves both parameters under-documented.

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 states a specific function and resource: retrieving statistics for a Facebook post, illustrated with concrete metric examples (portée, clics, réactions). Naming 'Facebook' implicitly distinguishes it from the Instagram and Threads insight siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like get_post or get_page_insights, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains many overlapping insights tools (get_page_insights, get_ig_media_insights, get_threads_insights), and the description offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing hints to help an agent pick the correct one.

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