meta get ad activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds endpoint and field context but does not disclose operational behavior such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving it at the baseline for annotation-backed tools.

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 sentence front-loads the verb, resource, endpoint, and expected fields with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 endpoint, field list, complete parameter schema, and rich annotations give an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly. The main gap is a brief usage pointer or sibling distinction, which would make it fully complete given the large set of sibling tools.

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%, and the schema documents all five parameters with defaults, bounds, and formats, so the description does not need to add parameter detail. The mention of output fields like object, event, actor, timestamp, and extra_data is useful context but does not alter parameter semantics.

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 ('Read'), resource ('ad account activity logs'), endpoint path ('/{ad_account_id}/activities'), and expected output fields, so an agent can tell it apart from insight or asset tools. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool such as meta_get_insights_raw or meta_list_edge_raw, which keeps it just below the top score.

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 'activity logs' implies an audit/event use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives like meta_get_insights or meta_get_node_fields. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool names are provided.

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