telemost_stats_engagement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds critical context: the tool is paid per call in USDC and references telemost_catalog for pricing. It also indicates time-series output ('over time'), which is not in the annotations.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core metrics, followed by use case and payment note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain return values more explicitly. It names the metrics but not their format or the effect of the aggregation parameter. The payment and benchmark context are helpful, but the lack of parameter guidance leaves the tool only partially complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the 'channel' or 'aggregation' parameters. 'Over time' weakly hints at aggregation, and 'channel performance' implies the channel parameter, but this is insufficient for an agent to know how to set these parameters correctly.

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 specifies exactly what the tool provides: engagement rate (ER), engagement rate by reach (ERR), and 24-hour reach engagement (ERR24) over time. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like telemost_stats_channel or telemost_stats_reach, which focus on different metrics.

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 phrase 'Benchmark audience activity and channel performance' gives a clear use case, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It implies usage context without direct comparisons to sibling tools.

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