Get post analytics

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds valuable context: data is synced hourly (so results may be slightly stale) and includes aggregated totals plus per-platform breakdown. This goes beyond annotations to explain freshness and output shape without contradicting them.

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 two well-structured sentences: the first front-loads what the tool does and what it returns, the second adds data freshness and a usage pointer. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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?

With 3 optional parameters, an output schema, and readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context: scope, data freshness, and a typical use case. No critical information is missing that isn't already in the schema or annotations.

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 100%, with detailed descriptions for limit, period, and platform. The tool description itself does not add additional parameter semantics, and per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents parameters thoroughly.

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 reads performance metrics (specific verb 'Read') for published posts, with aggregated totals and per-platform breakdown. This distinguishes it from all siblings (none other cover analytics), making 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 explicitly suggests when to use it ('Use it to analyze what performed well') and even points to a following action ('generate new ideas with create_idea'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for non-analytics needs, so it falls short of a 5.

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