Get Campaign Insights

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's statement 'Gets' is consistent. The description adds some value by listing the return metrics (spend, impressions, etc.), but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like rate limits, required permissions, or data freshness. It relies on annotations for safety profile.

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 structured with an Args list and a return statement. It is relatively concise (about 12 lines) and front-loads the purpose. A few minor redundancies exist (e.g., repeating schema info), but overall it is well-organized and efficient.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return fields. However, it lacks context on sorting, pagination, error handling, or the exact meaning of metrics. Given the complexity and sibling differentiation needed, it is acceptable but not fully comprehensive.

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 7 parameters with 57% description coverage. The description provides brief parameter descriptions and enumerates example breakdowns, adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, some parameters like 'since' and 'until' lack format explanation, and the schema already covers enums for date_preset and breakdowns. The baseline is 3 due to moderate coverage.

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 that it gets performance insights for campaigns, and the parameter list aligns with campaign-level metrics. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like meta_get_account_insights or meta_get_ad_insights, which are similar but for different levels.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain that this is for campaign-level insights, whereas meta_get_ad_insights is for ad-level insights. The optional campaign_id parameter implies filtering, but no explicit when-to-use advice is given.

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