Get account metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: available metrics vary per network and may be absent from the response. That is a meaningful non-obvious behavior that would otherwise cause agents to assume a metric is always present. No behavior contradicts annotations; the description is consistent with a read-only, open-world-ish response.

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?

Two sentences total: the first states what the tool returns, the second gives the most important non-obvious usage warning. It is front-loaded, compact, and every sentence earns its place. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool's name.

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 there is no output schema, the description explains that returns vary by network, which partially covers the unknown return shape. It does not cover pagination, response format, or error behavior, but for a read-only metrics tool with a simple 5-parameter schema and annotations, the key operational fact (don't assume metric presence) is present. The gap on id_account/id_social semantics is minor and probably inherited from shared account concepts.

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 schema already covers about 80% of parameters, including descriptions for names, to_date, from_date, and id_organization. The description adds guidance about not assuming metrics exist and about requesting a range, both of which relate to the 'names' and date parameters. However, the core required parameter id_account has no schema description, and the description does not clarify what a valid id_account is.

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 opens with a concrete object and action: 'Followers and how they moved over time for one connected account.' That clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like get_publication_stats (publication-centric stats) and get_dashboard_summary (aggregate summary). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the resource and metric scope are clear.

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 says 'ask for a range and read what comes back rather than assuming a metric is there,' which serves as a usage rule: request a date range and tolerate missing series. That is the key usage context for this tool. However, no explicit exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so there remains some room for an agent to wonder when to use this instead of get_dashboard_summary.

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