get_account_insights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns metrics, but does not disclose any side effects (though it's likely read-only), default date ranges, pagination, permission requirements, or how parameters like level or time_range affect behavior. This is a significant gap for a complex insights tool.

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 redundant words, making it concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could have included more useful context (e.g., 'aggregate at account level') without becoming verbose, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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?

With seven optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to allow an agent to confidently invoke this tool. It does not explain aggregation levels, date range handling, breakdowns, or the difference from sibling insight tools. This is comparable to a mid-tier description that leaves major questions unanswered.

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 input schema has 100% parameter descriptions, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description's mention of metrics like impressions, clicks, spend, and reach aligns with the 'fields' parameter but adds no additional meaning or syntax guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('performance insights for the ad account'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that target campaign, adset, or ad-level insights. However, it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, relying on the name and the phrase 'ad account' to imply scope.

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 like get_campaign_insights or get_ad_insights. It does not mention whether to use it for account-level reporting, nor does it specify any exclusions or alternative tools.

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