Get one post's stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond that: values are cumulative rather than per-day increments, and unmeasured keys are omitted rather than zeroed. That materially changes how an agent interprets and sums the data. It stops short of covering pagination, date-range or auth requirements.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the most decision-relevant caveat (cumulative, not incremental) is front-loaded. The opening fragment is a data-shape statement rather than an action statement, which slightly delays clarity.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so return-format and risk disclosure are not required. What remains missing is usage context (when to pick this over the many sibling read tools) and any parameter explanation, leaving the definition adequate but with clear gaps for a 2-parameter read tool.

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 coverage is only 50% — id_organization is documented, but id_publication has no description. The description never addresses either parameter; the phrase 'a single post' at best weakly implies id_publication identifies the post, and it leaves the publication-vs-post naming ambiguity unresolved.

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 states a specific resource and scope: 'the measurements of a single post over time,' which tells an agent this returns a time series of stats for one post. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement, and it does not name how it differs from siblings like get_publication or get_top_publications, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether this is the right tool for a single post's metrics versus get_publication (the post itself) or get_top_publications (aggregate rankings). The description is purely about the shape of the data, not about selection.

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