Get one post's stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful context beyond annotations by limiting the tool to published posts and listing the specific engagement metrics included, which helps set expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the tool's scope and then lists the concrete metrics, making it easy to scan and parse.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return semantics by naming the metrics included. It could mention the response shape or behavior for nonexistent/unpublished posts, but given the safety annotations and schema coverage, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 100%, so the parameters post_id and publication are already fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic load adequately.

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 verb and resource: 'Full performance detail for one published post' and enumerates the exact metrics returned. This clearly differentiates it from content-retrieval siblings like get_post and aggregate analytics tools like get_analytics or get_dashboard_summary.

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 provides clear context by specifying 'one published post', so an agent understands this is for single-post performance data rather than aggregate or email-specific stats. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous enough to guide selection.

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