Account insights

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: data can lag up to 48 hours, and 'views' replaced the retired 'impressions' metric — essential for interpreting and trusting the numbers. It stops short of describing aggregation/rounding behavior or empty-window responses.

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?

Three short sentences: scope and metric list first, then the two caveats an agent actually needs (lag, renamed metric), then the routing hint. No filler and no repetition of the schema's parameter docs.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the metric set and the response_format parameter covers the return shape, so an agent knows what it gets back. A brief note on the default metric subset or empty-data behavior would close the last gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra by clarifying metric nomenclature ('views' replaced 'impressions') and restating the 1-30 day window, which maps directly to the 'days' parameter and prevents an agent from requesting a retired metric name. It adds meaning rather than repeating schema text.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('account-level totals over the last N days') and enumerates exactly which metrics come back (views, reach, accounts engaged, interactions, likes, comments, shares, saves, follows, link taps). It also names the nearest sibling, ig_get_audience, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: 'For audience age/gender/location use ig_get_audience,' which is a concrete alternative with its selecting condition. It also states the window constraint (1-30 days). It doesn't address when to prefer ig_get_media_insights or account vs. per-post scope, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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