meta_get_insights_raw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that field names are validated and native/raw, and that pagination is supported, which is useful. However, it does note describe the return shape, pagination details, error behavior, or whether results are passthrough vs transformed, 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the key differentiator in the second sentence. No filler; every clause adds signal in a compact way.

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 tool is complex — 14 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema — yet the description is only a high-level summary. It gives no guidance on how parameters combine, what default behaviors apply, what errors look like, or what the raw response contains, leaving substantial context missing for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 14%, so the description needed to explain the large parameter set. It groups many capabilities (breakdowns, action attribution windows, filters, sort, summary, pagination) into a list, but does not explain any individual parameter's semantics, syntax, or interactions. This adds only minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 (Query), a clear resource (the Meta Insights edge), and enumerates supported capabilities (native field names, breakdowns, attribution windows, filters, sort, summary, pagination). It also distinguishes itself from meta_get_insights by positioning itself as the raw-field complement when the curated catalog lags.

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 explicitly says this complements meta_get_insights when Meta adds fields before the curated metric catalog is updated, giving a clear condition for when to choose this tool. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention other sibling tools, but the primary alternative is addressed.

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