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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool renders an interactive card, records selections in widget context, and instructs the agent to read that context before claiming inability. It also hints at downstream usage. This goes beyond a typical list operation, though it does not mention safety or side effects (likely read-only).

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes relevant behavioral context. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though the second sentence is dense with instructions.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter semantics (except implied campaign_id), pagination behavior, and return format details. The interactive card behavior is covered, but an agent would still lack essential usage details for optional parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies the required campaign_id via 'for a campaign' but does not explain limit, cursor, ad_account_id, or status_filter. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, leaving these parameters underspecified.

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 lists ad sets for a campaign and specifies the returned fields (targeting, budget, optimization, schedule, delivery status). This is specific and unambiguous, and the name alone distinguishes it from sibling list tools.

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 explains the interactive card selection mechanism and how to handle ticked selections (read widget context, use selected id for create tools), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over other listing tools. The context is useful but not a full usage guide.

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