get_post_analytics

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the metric list clarifies the expected result, but the description does not disclose possible limitations like data delay, permission requirements, or behavior when metrics are unavailable. It is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and metric list without any filler or redundant wording. Every element earns its place.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and the data returned. It doesn't discuss time ranges or permissions, but those are not essential for a straightforward analytics retrieval, and the schema covers the parameters.

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 the input schema already documents both 'as' and 'post_urn' clearly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats, constraints, or relationships; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a well-defined resource ('performance stats for a specific LinkedIn post'), and enumerates the exact metrics returned (impressions, reactions, comments, shares, clicks). This makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like post_to_profile or get_recent_posts.

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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving analytics of one specific post, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer it over get_recent_posts or mention any exclusions or alternatives. The use case is inferable from context, but no direct guidance is provided.

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