Account insights

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds genuinely useful semantic behavior beyond that: views_scope is lifetime while posts_scope is the period, a non-obvious distinction. It says nothing about aggregation semantics for "all" or behavior for missing accounts, keeping it at 4.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the returned metrics and the required argument. No filler, though the scope sentence refers to fields that do not appear in the schema, which is minor friction.

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 only two simple parameters, no output schema and annotations handling the safety profile, the description covers what an agent needs: metrics returned, time window, aggregation option. Missing only return shape and edge-case behavior.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the "all" value and the 30d default. The description repeats those facts and introduces views_scope/posts_scope, which are not actual parameters, so it adds little and risks confusing the agent. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: returns views, likes, replies and followers for one account over a period. A reader knows exactly what data comes back. It does not differentiate from any sibling (e.g. get_my_usage, list_events), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"Applies when the user asks how an account is performing" gives a clear trigger condition. It states no exclusions and names no alternative tool for org-level or per-post analysis, so usage is contextual rather than fully routed.

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