Get one post's stats

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

With annotations already flagging readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior, the description adds high-value interpretation: points are cumulative, not daily increments, and unmeasured networks yield absent keys rather than zeros. This prevents two major misreading bugs and goes well beyond the structured 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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core definition is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds critical caveats without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the non-obvious data semantics, and the output schema explains the response structure, so the tool seems sufficiently specified for a read-only stats endpoint. It doesn't enumerate which metrics are included, but the output schema can carry that.

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 description identifies id_publication as the relevant single post, but it doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Schema coverage is only 50% because id_publication lacks its own description; the tool description partially compensates by saying 'single post.'

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 returns measurements of a single post over time, and the title supplies the 'get' verb. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_top_publications or get_publication, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 'measurements of a single post over time' implies when to use it—when you need one post's time-series stats rather than account-level metrics or top-post rankings. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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