Metrics for the whole profile

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world hints, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds a meaningful behavioral caveat: data starts 13 April 2024, is unreliable before 1 June 2024, and earlier windows return nothing. This is genuinely useful beyond 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?

Two short sentences carry all essential information with no filler. The metric list and profile scope are front-loaded, and the important data-availability caveat is placed second without bloating the description.

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 read-only, idempotent insights tool with a rich schema, the description covers what is returned and the critical temporal limitation. It does not describe the exact return shape, but no output schema exists and the listed metrics give sufficient expectation for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description mostly restates the metrics list and date caveat rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, though it slightly supplements the 'since' parameter with the reliability window.

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 resource (the whole profile) and enumerates the exact metrics returned: views, likes, replies, reposts, quotes, link clicks, and follower count. The phrase 'Profile-level' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_post_insights, which targets individual posts.

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 makes it clear this is for profile-level metrics rather than post-level insights, and it gives an explicit time-window constraint. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the profile-level framing is strong enough context for selection.

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