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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose a non-obvious trait: data is served from ADSAP's cache and live-synced from Meta only when the cache is empty. It does not cover output shape or pagination, but the cache/sync behavior is meaningful and transparent.

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?

Two direct sentences with no filler. The resource scope is front-loaded, and the cache/sync behavior is added in a single secondary sentence that earns its place.

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 is adequate for a list tool, covering purpose, resource types, and data source, but it leaves cursor/limit mechanics and the return payload unspecified, especially since there is no output schema and no annotations to fill those gaps.

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 the parameters. It loosely maps to asset_type by listing asset kinds and references the requested account for ad_account_id, but it adds no meaningful explanation for limit, cursor, or ad_account_id beyond what the schema already shows.

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?

States precisely that the tool lists Meta assets for ad creation, enumerating concrete resource kinds: pages, Instagram accounts, pixels, and forms. The resource list distinguishes it from many adsap_list_* siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 phrase 'for ad creation' implies when this tool should be used, but the description gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and names no sibling alternatives. Usage context is present, but routing is left mostly to inference.

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