stats

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the kind of data produced (counts, date range, enrichment progress), which implies a non-destructive read, but it never states read-only behavior, scope of aggregation, or whether 'enrichment progress' indicates an in-flight background job.

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 compact phrase with no filler, and the most informative element (per-channel post counts) is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification, which slightly caps the score.

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 an output schema present and no parameters, the definition doesn't need to explain return values, and it names the key metrics. However, it omits the aggregation scope (all channels vs. a default window) that an agent needs to interpret the numbers correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.

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 fragment names specific returned content (per-channel post counts, date range, enrichment progress), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_post/recent/search_posts as an aggregate reporting tool. It lacks an explicit verb and never says it is a read-only summary, 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus recent, search_posts, or list_topics, and no mention of scope (which channels, what window). The agent must infer that this is the overview/metrics endpoint.

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