meta_get_account_details

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 conveying safety and behavior. The verb 'Get' unambiguously marks this as a read-only operation, and the list of fields tells the agent what kind of data to expect. It does not mention permission requirements or failure modes, but for a simple metadata getter the read-only signal is adequate.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the operation and then itemizes the key return data. There is no repetition of the tool name, no filler, and every word contributes meaning.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, this description is complete: it states the operation, identifies the required input implicitly, and enumerates the returned fields. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context.

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 documents the only parameter fully, including the expected format and an example ('act_123456789'). The description adds little beyond the phrase 'specific Meta ad account', which aligns with the adAccountId parameter but does not provide additional format or usage detail. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('Meta ad account') and enumerates the details returned (name, currency, timezone, spend cap, status, business info). The qualifier 'specific' distinguishes this from sibling meta_list_ad_accounts, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly signals that this tool is for a single account rather than for listing accounts, which gives the agent a clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the specific-vs-list contrast is sufficient to route an agent correctly.

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