Get Ad Account Insights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds the set of returned metrics (impressions, clicks, spend, etc.) and mentions optional breakdowns, but doesn't disclose behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or data volume constraints. This matches the calibration where annotations carry the safety burden and the description adds modest value.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds relevant information without fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, optional level breakdowns, date range usage, and lists common returned metrics. It doesn't explicitly mention default limit or time_increment, but those are in the schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'level' and 'since/until' which are already in the schema, and lists common metrics that also appear in the schema's fields description. It adds no substantial meaning beyond the schema, hence the baseline 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 starts with a specific verb+resource ('Get performance insights for the ad account') and immediately clarifies it is for the ad account level, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_campaign_insights. It also mentions optional level breakdowns, making its purpose and scope unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context on usage: it is for the ad account, with optional level breakdowns and date ranges. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the sibling insight tools (e.g., get_campaign_insights) or state any exclusions, so it falls short of explicit 'when-not' guidance.

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