ad_manager_fb_get_reporting

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description 'Get reporting data' is consistent with these but adds no additional behavioral context. It does not mention any authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what data is actually returned. With annotations covering safety, the description should add value but does not.

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?

'Get reporting data' is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. There is no front-loading of critical information, and the single phrase does not earn its place by conveying any actionable detail.

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 tool with 6 parameters (5 required) and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the report contains, how to interpret the fields, whether there are required date ranges, or any limitations. An agent is left to infer everything from the schema, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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% – every parameter has a description in the input schema (e.g., 'Time grouping interval', 'Comma-separated reporting fields'). The description itself adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. It does not help with nuances like date format or field constraints beyond what the schema already lists.

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 'Get reporting data' is extremely vague. It does not specify what kind of reporting data, from which ad platform (though the name implies Facebook), or how it differs from sibling tools like ad_manager_fb_get_campaign_reporting or ad_manager_fb_get_reporting_list. It barely states a verb and resource without any specificity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. An agent has no way to know if this is the right tool for a given reporting scenario without opening the schema and guessing.

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