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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-read, non-destructive action. The description usefully adds that the operation queues a fresh pull rather than returning existing data, but it omits what happens after queueing (async completion, polling, whether cached insights are replaced, rate limits) — significant for a mutation-shaped tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse — the brevity contributes to the gaps rather than padding them.

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, so return values needn't be described. But for a queueing/mutation tool with a required-by-default param at 0% schema coverage and no explanation of post-call behavior or sibling routing, the description leaves too much for the agent to guess.

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 0% and the description never mentions the sole parameter `days`. The agent cannot tell from the description whether `days` controls the pull window, the lookback range, or something else, nor why the default is 30.

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?

"Queue a fresh pull of standard Meta insight rows" gives a verb (queue a pull) and a resource (standard Meta insight rows). However, it does not distinguish this from close siblings like insights_query_overview, insights_query_consistent, or insights_pull_product_breakdowns — "standard" hints at the difference but never names it.

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 statement of when to use this versus the many query tools (query_overview, query_batch_overview, query_consistent, read_breakdowns, export_csv). The word "queue" implies a refresh trigger rather than a read, but the agent must infer that and the consequences.

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