meta get promotable apps

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 trailing 'Read-only' is redundant. The description adds no behavioral context beyond safety (no pagination, no scoping caveats, no behavior when no promotable apps exist), so it earns partial credit only for framing this as a discovery/prep step.

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 densely packed sentence front-loads purpose and then supplies the consuming field path. No filler, though the embedded Graph API field syntax makes it heavier to parse than necessary for an agent skimming it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers purpose, downstream consumption, and read-only nature. Minor gaps remain around result volume/pagination and empty-result handling for a simple single-parameter listing tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the adAccountId description already warns against substituting campaign or business IDs. The description adds nothing about the single parameter, so the baseline 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 apps this ad account can advertise') plus a distinguishing payload ('with their store URLs'). This clearly separates it from asset-listing siblings like meta_get_pages, meta_get_pixels, and meta_get_instagram_accounts.

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?

Explicitly ties the tool to a concrete downstream use case: setting up a website and app (cross-channel) ad set via promoted_object.omnichannel_object.app[]. It does not name any alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, which keeps it short of a 5.

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