Get Thread Post Insights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description isn't burdened with stating safety. However, it adds minimal extra behavior: it lists metrics and says returns metric values. It doesn't mention the response_format parameter or any potential side effects, but annotations cover the safe read nature, so a 3 is fair.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus argument details. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition. It's well-organized with an args list.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should be more explanatory about the return format. It says 'Returns: Metric values for the post' which is vague. It also omits the response_format parameter, which is in the schema but could affect how results are presented. Without an output schema, an agent might not know what to expect in the response. Given the simplicity, more detail on the response structure would be needed.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema for media_id ('Threads media ID') and metrics (lists valid options: views, likes, replies, reposts, quotes, shares, reach, saved). It also clarifies the return type. However, it does not describe response_format, though the schema does with a description. Since schema coverage is 67% and the description helps fill gaps for two params, this is above baseline.

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 gets performance metrics for a specific Threads post. This distinguishes it from user-level insights tools like threads_get_user_insights and Facebook post insights tools like meta_get_post_insights. The verb 'Gets' plus the resource 'specific Threads post' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage (you need a media_id for a specific post) but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for single-post metrics as opposed to user-level or aggregate metrics, and doesn't reference sibling tools. The purpose is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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