get_meta_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), requires account_id from another tool, and has date formatting and default behavior. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination, leaving gaps for a tool with output schema.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose and metrics, second sentence covers key parameters and defaults. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, and usage context. The output schema likely covers return values, so no need to detail them. Minor gaps include lack of error cases or advanced behavioral traits.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for all 3 parameters: account_id (source from 'get_my_accounts'), start_date/end_date (format YYYY-MM-DD, default last 30 days). This covers semantics beyond schema types, though it could detail null handling or date validation more explicitly.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('Meta Ads performance metrics') with explicit listing of metrics (spend, impressions, clicks, CTR, CPC, ROAS, conversions). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_google_performance' by specifying the platform (Meta Ads) and from analysis tools by focusing on raw metrics retrieval rather than analysis.

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 provides clear context for when to use it: to obtain performance metrics for Meta Ads, with account_id sourced from 'get_my_accounts' and date defaults to last 30 days. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or alternatives (e.g., vs. 'analyze_account_ads' for deeper insights), though the specificity helps differentiate from siblings.

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