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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses important behavior: pagination truncation returns an object with result and warning, foreign-account IDs return {'error': 'foreign_object'}, learning-phase statuses and their meanings, targeting key behavior, and when bid_strategy is null due to CBO. This is unusually rich behavioral context for an agent.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose, but it becomes a very long wall of return-field details, especially about learning statuses and targeting internals. Because an output schema already exists, many of these sentences do not need to be repeated here, making the definition substantially over-sized for a three-parameter list tool.

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 read-only, open-world annotations and the existing output schema, the description is more than complete: it covers purpose, filtering, pagination behavior, error cases, and nuanced return-value semantics. An agent should have everything needed to call it correctly.

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 carry parameter meaning; it does. It explains limit as maximum count with default 50 and truncation behavior, campaign_id as an optional campaign restriction, and workspace as an optional slug when only one workspace exists.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: "Meta-Adsets auflisten (optional nur einer Kampagne)" and immediately names the returned fields (status, budget, optimization goal, targeting summary, issues). It clearly identifies this as the ad-set listing tool and distinguishes it from campaign-level tools by noting when bid_strategy is null and should be read via meta_list_campaigns.

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 usage context: optionally restrict to one campaign, use campaign_id or a higher limit when pagination truncates results, and use this to read fields back after meta_update_adset. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over performance-oriented siblings such as meta_adset_performance, but the intended context is still clear.

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