Engagement summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds that this is an aggregating read (totals/averages) rather than a raw listing, which is useful context. It says nothing about cost, rate limits, or whether reading many posts is expensive.

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 first sentence is dense and front-loaded with the useful content. The second sentence ('Bluesky offers no equivalent') is a comparative aside that is confusing in a Bluesky-targeted toolset and does not help an agent invoke the tool, so it fails to earn 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 read-only summary tool with full schema coverage and complete safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient, and it even sketches the return shape (totals, averages, rate, per-format breakdown) despite no output schema. Missing only explicit routing against sibling analytics tools.

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 days, actor, limit and account are all documented in the schema already. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting nuance beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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?

States a specific verb and resource and spells out exactly what is computed: totals, averages, engagement rate, broken down by format. That level of detail lets an agent distinguish it from aggregation-flavored siblings like get_post_stats or rank_posts. The trailing 'Bluesky offers no equivalent' claim is odd and potentially misleading given every other tool clearly targets Bluesky accounts.

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?

Usage is only implied via the phrase 'so you can see whether images or video actually earn their effort,' which conveys the analyzing intent. It never states when to prefer this over rank_posts or get_post_stats, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that it defaults to the connected account). Adequate but leaves selection to inference.

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