Get Threads User Insights

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive. The description adds value by noting that follower_demographics requires 100+ followers and that 'since' is required for time-series metrics. However, it does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, or authentication scope beyond the implied 'authenticated' user.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds necessary detail without repetition. No unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description does not explain the return value structure (e.g., format of metrics data). It also omits pagination or data limits. While parameters are well-covered, the missing output specification reduces completeness for an insights tool.

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 description significantly augments the input schema, which has only 33% coverage. It enumerates allowed metrics (time-series and demographics), explains the conditions for follower_demographics, clarifies that 'since' is required for time-series, and lists valid breakdown values. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Gets account-level metrics for the authenticated Threads user', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like threads_get_post_insights (post-level) and other Meta account insights tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., threads_get_post_insights for post metrics, meta_get_account_insights for Facebook). It lacks explicit when/when-not criteria or usage context beyond the operational steps.

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