meta_list_ad_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It claims to 'List all' accounts, but the schema shows a `limit` parameter with a default of 25 and a description 'Max accounts to return', meaning it does not necessarily return all accounts. This contradiction is not addressed in the description, and pagination behavior is not mentioned. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 two sentences long, with the primary action and resource front-loaded. Every word contributes meaningful information about purpose and output. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and return fields. However, it fails to explain how the `limit` parameter works in relation to the claim of listing 'all' accounts, and it does not mention pagination or how to retrieve more than the default 25. This leaves an important gap for successful usage.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the `limit` parameter with a clear description, so the baseline is 3. However, the description's phrasing 'List all' directly conflicts with the limit semantics, and it adds no explanation about how the limit affects the result set. This creates confusion rather than adding value, so a lower score is warranted.

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 the action ('List') and the resource ('Meta/Facebook ad accounts') with a specific scope ('accessible with the current access token'). It also enumerates the returned fields, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like meta_account_overview, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as meta_account_overview or other listing tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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