getInsights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers: it discloses the return-shape difference between account level (aggregated summary) and campaign/adset/ad levels (per-item metrics with normalized ids/names, spend, results, CPR). It does not cover pagination or error behavior, but the structural disclosure is strong for a metrics tool.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The core capability and supported levels are front-loaded, and the return-shape clarification is appended where it belongs. Could be tightened slightly but is appropriately sized.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values — it does, clarifying the aggregated vs per-item distinction and listing the metric fields. For a read-only metrics tool with well-documented parameters, the remaining gaps (pagination, max range limits) are minor.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions (enum values, format hints, precedence between timeRange and datePreset). The description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining what each level actually returns, which is the most ambiguous part of the contract.

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 uses a clear verb+resource ('Get performance metrics for accounts, campaigns, adsets, or ads') and distinguishes levels of aggregation. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate from, but the purpose is specific enough to separate it from discovery tools like getCampaigns/getAdSets.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the description tells what it returns but never says when to choose this over getCampaignDetails, getAdSetDetails, or compareTwoPeriods. With 30 siblings, explicit routing guidance would materially help an agent pick correctly.

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