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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It openly states the returned fields and, more importantly, discloses the interactive card behavior, tick selection, widget context storage, and the required agent behavior of reading the widget context before claiming inability to see ticks. It leaves some behaviors unspecified (e.g., pagination/cursor semantics), but the unusual interaction behavior is well covered.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the behaviorally important card/tick instruction. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers the operational gist and the interactive selection behavior, which is valuable. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, the description is not fully complete for an agent trying to supply parameters correctly or understand pagination behavior.

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%, and the description explains none of the five parameters. It does not define ad_account_id, limit, cursor, status_filter, or objective_filter semantics. An agent receiving this description would have to guess how to populate the filters and how pagination works.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List Meta campaigns in an ad account.' It names the returned fields (budget, schedule, objective), clearly distinguishing itself from sibling tools like adsap_google_list_campaigns and adsap_list_ad_sets.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: listing Meta campaigns within an ad account. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the resource and platform are clear enough for an agent to select it correctly among the many list/ad tools.

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