Get Campaign Insights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the returned metrics (spend, impressions, clicks, CTR, actions) but does not disclose other behaviors such as rate limits, auth requirements, or response size. With annotations handling safety, this adds some value but not rich behavioral detail.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then organized into an args list plus a return note. It is reasonably concise for a 7-parameter tool, with each parameter earning its place through added semantics. Slight verbosity in the args list is justified by the need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 explains what the tool does, how to filter, date ranges, breakdowns, and the returned metrics. For a read-only insights tool with no output schema, it provides sufficient guidance. It does not mention pagination or limitations, but these are minor given the read-only annotation and clear purpose.

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 57%, but the description compensates by explicitly documenting the uncovered parameters: since, until, and ad_account_id. It also adds context for campaign_id ('omit for all') and date_preset ('default: last_30d'). The breakdowns list is duplicated but with useful examples. This goes beyond the schema to clarify usage.

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 and resource: 'Gets performance insights for campaigns in a Meta ad account.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling insight tools like meta_get_account_insights and meta_get_adset_insights by specifying the campaign level. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'for campaigns' but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given. An agent would infer this is campaign-level versus other levels, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over meta_get_account_insights or meta_get_ad_insights. Clear context exists, but no direct routing to alternatives.

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