meta_get_delivery_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does usefully state that the operation is 'read-only' and that fields like status/effective_status/issues_info are used 'where available.' However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, response shape, or what 'simple delivery insights' includes 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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and avoids filler. Every phrase contributes meaning, and it remains readable despite combining scope, data source, and read-only behavior.

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 plus a fairly rich schema provides enough for basic invocation, but there is no output schema and the description does not describe the return structure or how diagnostics are aggregated. Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations, some important invocation context is still missing.

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 71%, with cursor, timeRange, datePreset, adAccountId, and effectiveStatusFilter already described. The description adds context by mapping levels to campaigns/ad sets/ads and by referencing effective_status/issues_info, but it does not compensate for undocumented parameters like limit and level.

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 names a specific action ('Aggregate'), a resource ('delivery diagnostics'), and the scope ('across campaigns, ad sets, and ads'). It clearly conveys what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as meta_get_insights or meta_health_check.

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives like meta_get_insights, meta_get_ads, or meta_health_check. The description implies a diagnostics use case but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to another sibling.

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