meta_ads_analysis_performance

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

Explicitly marks as 'Read-only', describes output format (current/prior metrics, delta %, callouts), and mentions Graph API quota cost for longer periods. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it could mention authentication or rate limits, but overall transparent.

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 purpose and usage guidance. No filler, every sentence provides 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, description adequately outlines return data (current/prior metrics, delta, callouts) and includes cost note. Lacks specific metric names but sufficient for a performance review tool.

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. Description adds minor context (e.g., account_id falls back to env, period cost implication) but does not significantly expand beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 produces a performance review with period-over-period comparison for a Meta Ads campaign or account. It specifies the verb 'produces' and the resource 'operator-ready performance review', distinguishing it from sibling tools like meta_ads_insights_report.

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 advises to use at the start of an audit to narrow attention before using meta_ads_insights_report for raw insights, providing clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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