get_page_insights

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the required permission (pages_read_engagement) and the return shape (a dictionary), which is helpful. However, it omits known behavioral constraints of the Facebook Insights API, such as metric/period compatibility restrictions, rate limits, and error behavior when the page is inaccessible or permissions are missing.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then the permission note, then a compact Args/Returns reference. The parameter list is lengthy but fully justified because schema description coverage is 0%—every entry provides information the agent cannot obtain elsewhere. Nothing is wasted, though the formatting could be tightened slightly.

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 6-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: all parameters, valid values, and permission. However, it misses practical Facebook API failure modes an agent would hit: metric/period incompatibility (e.g., some metrics reject the lifetime period) and the typical exclusivity between date_preset and since/until. These gaps could cause avoidable errors.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does comprehensively. Every one of the 6 parameters is documented: page_id, metric (with 10 enumerated common values), period (with 5 valid values), date_preset (with examples), and since/until (with both UNIX timestamp and YYYY-MM-DD formats). This adds decisive value the input schema alone does not provide.

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?

"Get performance insights for a Facebook Page" is a specific verb+resource statement, and the enumerated metric list (page_impressions, page_reach, page_engaged_users, etc.) makes the scope unambiguous. An agent can immediately distinguish this from sibling insight tools targeting other resources (get_adaccount_insights, get_campaign_insights, get_ad_insights) and from get_page_posts/get_promotable_posts, which concern post content rather than analytics.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to its siblings. It never states 'use this for Page-level analytics rather than ad/campaign insights' or notes when it should not be used; the only contextual hint is the pages_read_engagement permission prerequisite. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the metric names.

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