Get Facebook Post Insights

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: 'All post metrics use ''lifetime'' period (cumulative from post creation)' and the required auth flow via page_id. It also enumerates allowed metrics. This exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 long due to the exhaustive metric list, which is necessary and well-organized by category. It is front-loaded with purpose and prerequisite, and uses clear 'Args:' formatting with bold category labels. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'post_' prefix), but the structure is effective for an agent scanning options.

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?

The description covers the key operational details: required prior call, parameter format, metric options, and metric period. It does not mention error handling, rate limits, or output format, but the read-only annotations and the schema's response_format parameter mitigate completeness gaps. For a tool with no output schema, this is reasonably complete.

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%, but the description adds substantial meaning: it explains the format of post_id (e.g., 'page_id_post_id'), breaks down metrics into categories with full option lists, and clarifies that metrics use lifetime period. The schema's metrics description merely refers back to the description, so this is essential. response_format is not addressed in the description, but it's minimally documented in the schema.

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 the tool's function: 'Gets performance metrics for a specific Facebook Page post.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from page-level insights (meta_get_page_insights) or post retrieval (meta_get_post). The detailed metric list reinforces specificity.

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 a required prerequisite: 'Requires: meta_list_pages called first.' This is useful routing guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like meta_get_page_insights or meta_get_post, nor state when to avoid this tool. It gives one clear usage condition but lacks full alternatives.

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