Get Ad Insights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral context beyond confirming it's a read operation. It describes the filtering behavior (mutually exclusive identifiers) but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or pagination. The overall transparency is adequate given the annotations, but no extra value is added.

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, using a short paragraph followed by a bullet-like list of parameters. It front-loads the purpose and uses clear shorthand for optional vs. mutually exclusive parameters. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., grouping required vs. optional), but it is efficient with no wasted words.

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?

The description does not specify the output format or what data is returned, and there is no output schema. For a data retrieval tool with optional breakdowns, this is a notable gap. The annotations (readOnlyHint) and parameter explanations provide partial context, but agents need to infer the return structure. It is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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 adds meaning to several parameters beyond the schema: ad_account_id, campaign_id, adset_id, ad_id, date_preset, since/until, and breakdowns. It explains their scope (e.g., 'All ads in account'). However, it omits the 'response_format' parameter, which is present in the schema. Since schema description coverage is only 33%, the description compensates well for most key parameters.

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 purpose: 'Gets performance insights at the individual ad level.' It specifies the resource (ad insights) and scope (individual ad), and implies differentiation from sibling tools for other levels (account, campaign, adset). The explanation of mutually exclusive identifier parameters further clarifies its specific functionality.

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 clear guidance on parameter selection: 'Provide one of: ad_id, adset_id, campaign_id, or ad_account_id.' It also explains the context for each optional parameter (e.g., 'All ads in account'). However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with similar sibling tools like meta_get_adset_insights or meta_get_campaign_insights, leaving some ambiguity when multiple levels could apply.

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