Get Ad Set Insights

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it supports breakdowns and date presets, but does not elaborate on return format, pagination, or other behavioral details. Since annotations cover the main safety aspect, a score of 3 is appropriate for the additional behavioral context provided.

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 a compact docstring with a clear purpose line and a concise, structured argument list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and parameter details, with no unnecessary verbiage. Every sentence earns its place.

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 covers the main identifier parameters and date range but omits response_format and any details about the expected return values. With no output schema and low schema coverage, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to know what to expect from the tool. It is only partially complete and lacks important context for full usability.

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 coverage is only 38%, so the description carries significant burden. It explains the purpose of each identifier (ad_account_id for all ad sets, campaign_id for all in a campaign, adset_id for a specific one), and includes the default for date_preset. It also clarifies the relationship between since/until and date_preset. However, it omits response_format and gives minimal detail on breakdowns, which prevents a higher score.

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 states a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('performance insights for ad sets'). It clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from other insight tools by name and resource. It is not a tautology and conveys a concrete action.

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 includes usage instructions for identifier selection ('Provide ad_account_id or campaign_id or adset_id') and explains the scope of each identifier. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like meta_get_campaign_insights or meta_get_ad_insights, and lacks exclusions for when not to use this tool, leaving the when/alternative guidance incomplete.

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