meta_ads_analysis_audience

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It declares 'Read-only', giving the agent clear safety signal. It also mentions that longer windows cost more Graph API quota (in the period param description). The description adds example output (recommendations array), aiding transparency. However, it doesn't detail rate limits or auth requirements beyond the schema.

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 concise: two sentences with an embedded example. It front-loads the core purpose immediately and has no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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, the description thoroughly explains the return structure (rows per age_range×gender with spend, conversions, CPA, relative_score) and includes a concrete example of the recommendations array. The schema covers all parameters well. The tool is complex but the description provides enough context for an agent to understand inputs and outputs.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond the schema; it mentions account_id is optional with fallback and period accepts predefined ranges or explicit dates. It does add the cost implication for longer windows, which is useful, but overall the schema already explains the parameters well.

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 clearly states it scores delivery efficiency across age×gender segments, flags best/worst buckets, and returns specific fields (spend, conversions, CPA, relative_score, recommendations). It distinguishes itself from the sibling meta_ads_insights_breakdown by saying 'for raw breakdown numbers use that one', making its purpose very specific.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before adjusting targeting' and provides an alternative: 'for raw breakdown numbers use meta_ads_insights_breakdown with breakdown='age,gender'.' This clearly tells when to use this tool and when not, with a direct sibling reference.

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