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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond listing which fields are returned, and there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence immediately stating the action and resource, followed by a short contextual second sentence. No filler or repetition; every word contributes to the tool's core purpose.

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 tells the user what data will be returned, but with no output schema and only 0% parameter documentation, it leaves major gaps around which account to use, what 'authentication' means, and how include_paused behaves. The read-only nature is covered by annotations, but the actual parameter usage is left largely unexplained.

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% yet the description does not clarify the meaning or purpose of the three parameters (account, auth_account, include_paused). The description only lists output fields, not input semantics, so the agent gets no guidance on how to set parameters correctly.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed adset info') and enumerates the attributes included (targeting, budget, schedule, billing, optimization goal, delivery status). The phrase 'Fills the gap between campaigns and ads' positions it distinctly among sibling tools like meta_ads_campaigns and meta_ads_ads.

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 'gap between campaigns and ads' phrase implies this tool is used when campaign-level or ad-level detail is insufficient, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or mention related tools by name.

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