Meta ad sets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The description does add value by enumerating the returned fields, but it omits behavioral details like the pagination ceiling noted in the schema or how budgets are normalized.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the resource, optional scope, and returned fields with no filler. The trailing field list is dense but every item earns its place given there is no output schema.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields compensates well. Minor gaps remain around pagination behavior and how the client/account resolution works, but the schema covers those.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters with defaults and constraints. The description only restates the campaign scoping ('optionally of one campaign') and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List the ad sets of a Meta ad account') and even enumerates the returned fields, which is precise. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like meta_campaigns or meta_ads_list, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as meta_campaigns or meta_ads_list, nor any stated prerequisites beyond what the schema already carries. Usage is only implied by the resource named.

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