Ads Insights (sync only)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as 'read-only' and clarifies it does not support async jobs. It also explains that object_id can be prefixed if numeric. This provides sufficient behavioral context for a read operation. A minor gap is the lack of detail on rate limits or response format, but the core safety profile is clear.

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 only 4 sentences, all front-loaded with the most critical information: the HTTP method, sync-only nature, and object_id/level requirements. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers core concepts (object_id, level, common fields, sync limitation) but omits details on many advanced parameters and return value structure. For a Meta Insights API, experienced users may find it sufficient, but novices would need more context.

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 input schema has 12 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds value by explaining object_id (prefix logic), level (must match), and lists common fields (spend, impressions, etc.). However, it does not describe time_increment, breakdowns, filtering, pagination parameters, or other nuanced options. Given the low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves significant gaps.

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 is the 'GET /{object_id}/insights' endpoint for retrieving ads insights synchronously. It distinguishes itself from the async alternative by explicitly saying the server does not support async for huge date ranges, thus clarifying its scope.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for sync requests and for objects like account, campaign, adset, or ad with a matching level. It also specifies when not to use it (for huge date ranges where async is recommended) and mentions that the read-only server does not support the async flow.

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