Post performance

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful context about the returned metrics and the naming distinction, but it does not disclose behaviors such as time range handling, data availability limits, or whether the response is paginated.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first sentence front-loads the tool's core function and return metrics, and the second justifies the separation from page-level analytics. 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 simple read-only insights tool with one required parameter, the description, schema, and annotations cover most of what an agent needs to call it correctly. The only notable gap is the undocumented post_id semantics and the absence of any return-shape details, but the tool's low complexity keeps this from being a serious deficiency.

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 schema only documents the 'page' parameter; 'post_id' has no description, leaving 50% of the parameters undocumented. The description says 'one post' but does not clarify how to identify the post with post_id or how the optional page parameter affects the call, so it does not compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 opens with 'How one post did' and enumerates the exact metrics returned (impressions, reach, clicks, reactions), making the target resource unmistakable. It also explicitly contrasts Post metrics with Page metrics, distinguishing this tool from the sibling get_page_insights without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

The description explains that Post metrics are named differently from Page metrics and that is why this is a separate tool, giving an implicit directive to use it for post-level rather than page-level analytics. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state a direct 'use this when' rule, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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