Get Ad Set Insights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond noting it returns metrics and requires an ad set ID. It does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or time-range defaults, though these are partly covered by the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines what it does, the second gives concrete examples of returned metrics. No redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only insights tool with a detailed schema and annotations, the description is adequate but not exhaustive. It explains the core purpose and example outputs, while the schema handles parameter details. It lacks guidance on output format or unusual behaviors, but no output schema exists and the tool is relatively straightforward.

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 schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description's mention of metrics like impressions, clicks, spend, cpc, cpm, ctr, reach merely echoes the fields parameter's common values, adding no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Get performance insights for a specific ad set by ID', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_account_insights, get_campaign_insights, get_ad_insights) by explicitly targeting ad sets and listing sample metrics like impressions, clicks, and spend.

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 implies the tool is for ad set-level insights but does not explicitly say when to use this over alternatives like get_campaign_insights or get_ad_insights. No exclusionary guidance is given; usage context is only implicit from the tool name and resource mention.

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