meta_ads_insights_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait, and describes the return structure (rows with specific metrics). It does not disclose quota usage or error behavior, but the schema covers quota notes. It adds enough beyond a bare description to be 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and a clear usage/caveat note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly lists the return metrics and aggregation levels, giving the agent a solid understanding of what to expect. It also provides usage context and a sibling alternative. It is slightly thin on input edge cases (e.g., defaults for period), but the schema covers those. Overall, it is well-rounded for a reporting 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new parameter semantics beyond the schema; it restates the aggregation level and the one-campaign/whole-account choice, both already in the schema. No additional syntax or format details are provided.

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 the tool's function: it pulls raw delivery metrics from Meta Graph API Insights for one campaign or the whole account. It specifies the exact metrics returned and the aggregation levels, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool meta_ads_analysis_performance.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you need raw metrics' and contrasts with the alternative 'for interpreted findings... use meta_ads_analysis_performance instead.' This clearly directs the agent to the appropriate tool for different needs.

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