get_ad_insights

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only says 'Get' (implying a read operation) but does not disclose any potential side effects, default behaviors, return format, pagination handling, or error conditions. Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, no output schema), the description is severely lacking in behavioral disclosure. It adds almost no value beyond stating the purpose.

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, consisting of two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's function immediately. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does. There is no redundant or irrelevant information, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

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 14 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain what fields are returned by default, how to use filters, segments, time_ranges, or how pagination works. The description is far from complete for an API of this complexity. Agents would need to rely heavily on the schema and external documentation, and the description does not bridge any gaps. Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient for correct usage.

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?

The description makes no mention of any parameters, so it adds no semantic value to the input schema. Schema description coverage is 79%, which is moderate but not high enough to give baseline 3. Several parameters (e.g., includes, override_segment_group_order) lack descriptions in the schema, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining them. The description fails to help users understand parameter relationships or usage context beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Get ad insights for a single ad. Check creative-level performance.' It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (ad insights), and explicitly scopes to a single ad with a focus on creative-level performance. This distinguishes it from sibling insight tools like get_ad_account_insights or get_campaign_insights, which target different levels. No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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?

The description implies usage by mentioning 'single ad' and 'creative-level performance,' which suggests it is for ad-level insights. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_campaign_insights or get_ad_group_insights. No explicit 'when not to use' or references to sibling tools are provided. The usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit, making it adequate but not strong.

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