Meta ads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' sentence is largely redundant. The description does add value beyond annotations by disclosing the returned field set, which matters since no output schema exists. It still omits pagination/rate-limit behavior and auth requirements, which live only in the schema.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the action and scope, followed by a two-word safety tag. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated or padded.

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?

With no output schema, naming the returned fields is exactly the right compensation, and the read-only nature is covered jointly with annotations. Minor residual gap: pagination/cap behavior (at most 5 pages) and the client/account resolution rules appear only in the schema.

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 100%, so limit, adset_id, statuses, client_id, account_id and campaign_id are all documented in the schema. The description adds only the adset/campaign scoping hint, no format or semantics beyond what the schema already provides; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List the ads of a Meta ad account') and further narrows scope with the optional ad set / campaign scoping. Enumerating the returned fields (id, name, campaign_id, adset_id, status, effective_status, creative_id, dates) distinguishes it from entity siblings like meta_campaigns, meta_adsets, and from metric tools like meta_insights.

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 'optionally of one ad set or campaign' hints at filtering usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative named (e.g., 'for performance metrics use meta_insights, for ad set entities use meta_adsets'). An agent must infer routing from the resource name alone.

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