get_story_views

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about viewer scale (1000+ viewers) and explains the two behavioral filters (just_contacts and reactions_first) that affect output, going beyond the structured metadata.

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, with a clear one-line purpose followed by a compact args list. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral filters and purpose. It lacks an explicit explanation of limit, but schema defaults and obvious naming mitigate this; overall the description is adequate.

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 explains just_contacts and reactions_first, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it omits limit and story_id, and with 0% schema description coverage, this is only partial compensation for the parameters that need clarification.

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 'Кто посмотрел мою story' clearly states the tool returns the viewers of a story. It uses a specific verb+resource structure and distinguishes itself from sibling story tools by focusing on views rather than story content, sending, or archiving.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and purpose, with no reference to sibling tools or exclusions.

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