zuckerbot_get_account_insights

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: auto-pagination, truncation with a truncated flag, and the effect on data coverage. It also warns that zero-delivery days are legitimately absent and advises comparing the covered range with the requested range.

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 well-structured with the core purpose first, followed by details and caveats. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value (e.g., truncated behavior, zero-delivery days). No 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists return metrics, response fields (row_count, covered, truncated), and handles edge cases (truncation, missing zero-delivery days). This is comprehensive for a read-only data fetch tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms the date range and time_increment usage but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions auto-pagination but does not add parameter-specific meaning.

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 specifies the exact action (fetch historical Meta ad account performance), the resource (connected business over a date range), and the specific metrics returned (spend, clicks, impressions, CTR, CPM, CPC, frequency). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like zuckerbot_get_campaign_insights by focusing on account-level performance.

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?

Explicitly states the tool is 'useful for top-level budget reporting and month-over-month trend analysis without opening Ads Manager.' While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use or name alternatives, the context implies it's for aggregate account data vs. campaign-specific tools.

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