roasr_metrics_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that reach/frequency are Meta-only, null for older/non-Meta data, and that frequency is not additive across days. It also clarifies the entityRef narrowing behavior, adding meaningful context beyond the 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 two sentences, immediately front-loaded with the core purpose, and packs essential caveats without redundancy. Every clause adds value.

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 summary tool with no output schema, the description covers the key metrics, date-window behavior, important data caveats, and how entityRef works. It doesn't describe the exact return structure, but that is less critical given the aggregate nature and complete parameter schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal param-specific info (entityRef narrowing is already in the schema) and does not compensate with extra parameter-level guidance, though the metric caveats are useful.

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 tool provides workspace ad KPIs for a date window and enumerates the included metrics (spend, impressions, clicks, etc.). This distinguishes it from daily or breakdown tools by its aggregate nature, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast with sibling tools.

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 some context (Meta-only reach/frequency, non-additive frequency, entityRef narrowing) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like roasr_metrics_daily or roasr_metrics_breakdown. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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