Facebook Page + Instagram insights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which establish safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies the organic scope and introduces the MISSING data handling rule ('must never be reported as zero'), which is critical for interpreting responses. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 moderately long but packed with essential information. It front-loads the primary purpose and differentiators, then covers scope and data handling. Every sentence earns its place, though some redundancy exists (e.g., 'organic' repeated). It is well-structured but could be tightened slightly without losing clarity.

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 there is no output schema, the description lists the key metrics returned (views, engagements, video views, follows, counts, Instagram headline numbers) and explicitly mentions the MISSING data behavior. It also differentiates from related tools. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect, though it does not detail response format or units, which is acceptable without an output schema.

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 100%, meaning both parameters (pageId and period) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides; it reiterates the scope but does not explain parameter syntax or format further. This meets the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 precisely states the tool's function: it retrieves organic performance metrics for a linked Facebook Page and the connected Instagram account, listing specific metrics like views, engagements, video views, follows, and counts. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives (meta_insights for paid, instagram_insights for full Instagram) and specifying this tool's organic focus.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'use meta_insights for paid ad performance, and instagram_insights for the full Instagram set and its audience demographics.' It also gives practical parameter advice, such as omitting pageId when exactly one Page is connected, and notes the default period, making it clear when to call this tool.

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