Get bulk post analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond that: per-post errors are returned rather than failing the whole batch. It does not describe the error shape, platform-level gaps, or whether partial data still returns.

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?

One short clause, front-loaded with the resource and the batch limit, with the error behavior appended. No filler, though the fragment lacks a verb and reads more like a label than a sentence.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent needs: the batch limit and the partial-failure contract. Little more could be expected at this complexity.

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%, so the single postIds parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description restates the 60-item cap (already enforced by maxItems) but adds no meaning about ID format, where to source the IDs, or behavior when an ID is invalid — only partial compensation for the 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?

States a specific resource and scope: analytics for a batch of up to 60 posts. The batch scope implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_post_analytics, though no verb ('retrieve'/'fetch') and no explicit sibling callout make the distinction inferential rather than stated.

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 'up to 60 posts' framing implies this is the batch path versus the single-post get_post_analytics, but the description never says when to prefer one over the other, nor what to do for more than 60 posts. Usage is implied only.

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