gbp_get_insights

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

The verb 'Gets' implies a read-only operation, which is useful, and there are no annotations to contradict or extend that. However, the description does not explain authentication needs, default date ranges, limitations, or what happens when metrics or time windows are omitted, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is concise, though it sacrifices useful detail in favor of brevity.

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?

Given the low schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations, and a likely overlapping sibling 'gbp_performance_report', the description is not sufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool. It lacks guidance on parameter values, format, and tool differentiation.

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 only 25%, with only 'name' documented. The description adds almost nothing about the three undocumented parameters: 'metrics', 'startTime', and 'endTime'. It does not explain what metric values represent, the expected time format, or that these fields are optional.

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 verb ('Gets'), a resource ('performance insights'), and a scope ('a GBP location'). It is easy to understand what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the closely named sibling 'gbp_performance_report', which appears to cover similar functionality.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gbp_performance_report'. There is no mention of prerequisites, date-range conventions, or how it differs from other GBP tools, so an agent has to guess.

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