get_meta_insights

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does add meaningful behavioral context by declaring 'Read-only' and explaining the object_id fallback behavior. It stops short of disclosing pagination, rate limits, date-range defaults, or what metrics are actually returned, which is a notable gap for a reporting tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the key scoping rule (object_id behavior) is front-loaded right after the purpose statement. Efficient, though the level sentence is vague enough to be of limited 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 4-parameter reporting tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is thin: date_preset and limit semantics are unexplained, and the shape of the returned insights is not described at all. An agent would have to guess at date filtering and page size behavior.

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 0% and there are 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains object_id's accepted entity types and partially clarifies level, but says nothing about limit (default 25) or date_preset (default last_7d), leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get Meta Ads performance insights'), which is clearly distinguishable from sibling list/get tools like list_campaigns and get_ad_account_summary. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

It gives two concrete usage rules: leave object_id blank to fall back to the configured ad account, and use level for account breakdowns. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over get_ad_account_summary or the list_* siblings, so routing between alternatives is left to inference.

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