roasr_metrics_daily

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behavioral details: reach/frequency are Meta-only (null for older/non-Meta data) and daily reach must not be summed across days. This exceeds minimal expectations, though it omits other potential traits like auth or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by crucial caveats and a parameter hint. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description lists the returned metrics, warns about data caveats, and clarifies the entityRef behavior. Combined with the fully documented schema (all 6 parameters), it gives the agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly, though it does not describe the exact response structure.

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 adds 'entityRef narrows to a single campaign/adset,' which largely repeats the schema's own description. It does not materially enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 that the tool returns daily metric series over a date window for the workspace, listing specific metrics. It distinguishes itself from sibling metrics tools by the word 'daily' and the focus on trends/charts, but does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of 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 phrase 'for trends and charts' provides a clear usage context, and the entityRef parameter is explained as narrowing to a single campaign/adset. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools (e.g., summary, breakdown) nor state when not to use it, leaving the choice to the agent.

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