get_insights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, so description does not need to repeat safety. It adds value by disclosing supported features (fields, filters, sort, segments, time ranges, cursor pagination), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently lists features. Could be improved with bullet points for readability, but minimal waste. Appropriate length for the 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?

Given 12 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions, the description provides high-level context but lacks details on output structure, parameter formats, or required scope usage. Sufficient for basic understanding but not for precise invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 12 parameters, the description mentions several capabilities (fields, filters, segments, etc.) but does not map to parameter names or explain formats (e.g., how to specify time_range or segments). Partially compensates but leaves many parameters undefined.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get performance insights' and lists scopes (account, campaign, ad group, ad), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve single entities. However, it could be more specific about the type of insights (e.g., metrics).

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 use for aggregated performance data vs. entity retrieval, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool compared to alternatives like get_account or list_campaigns. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites provided.

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