Get LINE message engagement stats

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds critical caveats: 24-hour data lag, privacy floor (~20 users yielding null impressions), and scope restrictions. This significantly enhances transparency.

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?

One-line purpose, clean Args/Returns sections, and bullet-pointed caveats. No fluff; every sentence adds value. Well-structured and easy to scan.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description provides a full structured return model and important operational notes (lag, privacy, supported message types). It covers everything an agent needs to use the tool correctly.

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 33% (request_id described); the description reinforces request_id's origin and adds minimal info for oa (optional OA id) and response_format (enum/default). It compensates somewhat via the return structure but does not deeply explain each parameter beyond repetition.

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 clearly states the tool fetches per-broadcast engagement stats for a specific request_id, listing the metrics returned. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like line_get_narrowcast_progress (progress) and line_get_oa_report (OA-level stats) by focusing on a single message's engagement.

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?

Explicitly states the tool is for narrowcast/multicast/broadcast only, not for reply/push to single users. Also specifies that request_id comes from a prior line_send_message return, providing clear usage context and exclusions.

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