insights_get_account_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns aggregated metrics but does not mention that it's a read-only operation (implied by 'get'), any permission requirements, date range behavior, or response format. The brevity leaves significant behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core value proposition ('top-line') and the scope. It is concise and well-structured.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description conveys the return value and scope, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, it leaves gaps such as date_preset semantics and response details. It is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 schema has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It clarifies account_id by stating 'entire account,' but it does not explain the date_preset parameter, its default, or how it affects the results. This partial compensation is insufficient.

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 uses a specific verb implied by 'get' and clearly states the resource ('entire account') and the metrics ('spend/impressions/clicks'). 'Top-line' distinguishes it from more detailed insights sibling tools like insights_get or insights_compare_periods, making its purpose clear.

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 description implies usage for quick, high-level account summaries ('Quick top-line'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like insights_get or insights_compare_periods, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not contrasted with siblings.

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