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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the cache behavior, which fields return null, the interactive card rendering, widget context recording, and the integration with create tools. This is exceptionally thorough and goes far beyond a simple list operation.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: it covers the cached nature, returned fields, null fields, the alternative tool, the interactive card, widget context, and selection flow. It is front-loaded with the core action. Slightly verbose, but efficient relative to the amount of critical context it conveys.

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 the tool's complexity (interactive card, widget context, null fields) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects for correct invocation and interpretation. It even explains the side-effect behavior of recording selections and how they feed into other tools. Nothing an agent needs to use it correctly is missing.

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 for undocumented parameters. It implies campaign_id is required but does not explain limit, cursor, ad_account_id, or status_filter (including the enum values). The description focuses on return fields and interaction, not on parameter usage, leaving a significant gap.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('ad sets'), and a scoping condition ('for a campaign'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling adsap_get_ad_set by noting this is a fast cached list, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use this tool versus the alternative: it lists cached data and tells the agent to read fields live with adsap_get_ad_set for full details. It also gives precise guidance on handling user selections (read widget context before claiming inability to see ticks) and states how selected IDs flow into creation tools.

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