get_threads_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 lists the metrics returned, which overlaps with the output schema, and does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any edge-case behavior. The read-only nature is implied by 'Statistiques' and the 'get' prefix, but no explicit safety or permission context is given.

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?

The description is a single short sentence in French, with no fluff or repetition. It front-loads the key functional information (statistics of a Threads post) and lists examples of the returned metrics concisely. 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?

For a tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description is minimal but not entirely sufficient. It lacks usage context, such as how to obtain the thread_id, and does not clarify how this tool differs from other analytics tools in the sibling list. An agent might misselect it without additional clues.

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%, and the description does not explain what thread_id represents beyond the schema's title 'Thread Id'. It does not provide a format, example, or source for the ID, leaving the agent to infer that it is the identifier of the Threads publication. With zero schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 clear verb-resource pairing: 'Statistiques d'une publication Threads' (statistics of a Threads publication), and lists the specific metrics returned (views, likes, replies, shares). This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_threads_profile or list_threads_posts, though it does not explicitly name any sibling to differentiate from.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_post_insights, get_ig_media_insights, or get_threads_profile. The description gives no context on prerequisite conditions, such as requiring an Instagram/Threads account connection or specific permissions. An agent would have to infer usage purely from the tool name and description.

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