meta get ad studies

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 information about the output content ('Includes study type, status, and cells') but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or data freshness. Since annotations carry the main behavioral burden, the description provides modest additional value.

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 that states the primary action and scope immediately, followed by a brief note on included fields. No unnecessary words 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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and an output schema available, the description is sufficient. It states the purpose and what the result includes, without needing to explain return values since the output schema covers that.

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 covers the single parameter adAccountId with a clear description and example. The tool description adds nothing beyond that. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and there is no reason to score higher.

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 ('List') and resource ('conversion lift studies and A/B tests (Ad Studies)') with a scope ('for an ad account'). It adds detail on included fields (type, status, cells). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like meta_get_study_results, which is a similar retrieval tool.

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 purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it (when needing ad studies), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools. It relies on the agent's ability to infer context from the purpose.

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