meta_get_insights

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal a non-obvious behavior: the query planner automatically splits incompatible metric/breakdown combinations into multiple API requests and merges results. However, it does not mention read-only status, authentication, rate limits, pagination, or failure behavior, so transparency is partial.

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 and is mostly efficient. However, the two sentences 'Use meta://metrics resource...' and 'Use meta://breakdowns...' repeat information already present in the schema's parameter descriptions, so they do not earn their place as unique additions.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to cover return behavior and safe usage more thoroughly. It explains the query planner's merging behavior, but it does not describe the result shape, pagination, or how this tool relates to the raw insights sibling. The high schema coverage compensates partially, but gaps remain.

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 high (88%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description references meta://metrics and meta://breakdowns, but the schema itself already includes these references in the metrics and breakdowns parameter descriptions. The query planner sentence is behavioral rather than parameter-specific, so the description adds little beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Query Meta Ads performance insights.' It also states the tool supports 170+ metrics and 43+ breakdowns, with an automatic query planner that splits incompatible combinations. This distinguishes it from raw endpoints like meta_get_insights_raw, though it never names an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provided on when to choose this tool over siblings. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions like 'use meta_get_insights_raw if you need unmerged API responses.' The only implied usage is that it queries performance insights, which is not enough to route an agent reliably.

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