list_insights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch insights' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior (though page_size and page_cursor parameters exist), or what format the insights come in. The description is too vague about what 'insights' actually means in this context.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though what it communicates is insufficient. The structure is front-loaded with the core action and target.

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 12 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and complex sibling relationships, the description is severely incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the description doesn't address parameter meanings, usage context, behavioral constraints, or differentiation from alternatives. It leaves too many questions unanswered for effective tool selection and 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?

With 12 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'object_id' refers to, what 'date_range' options exist, what 'breakdown' means, or how any parameters interact. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 action ('Fetch insights') and the target resources ('for an account, campaign, ad set, or ad'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list/search tools on the server (like list_ads, list_campaigns, etc.), which would require explicit differentiation to earn a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., list_ads, list_campaigns, search_ads_archive), there's no indication of when insights fetching is preferred over other listing operations or what specific insights it provides that other tools don't.

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