meta_get_brand_safety_controls

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. The 'Read' verb implies non-mutating behavior and the mention of optional block-list edges gives a hint about sources, but the description does not state read-only status explicitly, permissions, pagination behavior, or what 'signals' actually contain. This is thin for a tool with no annotation support.

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 with no filler. The series 'brand safety, suitability, placement, and context-control signals' is dense but efficiently conveys scope.

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?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is not enough. Four parameters have no schema descriptions, and the description does not explain the effect of includeRawTargeting, limit, or the interaction between includeAdsets and includeBlockLists. An agent would need to guess at key invocation details.

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 50%, so the description should compensate. It does add context by mentioning ad account/ad set targeting and optional block-list edges, which helps interpret includeAdsets and includeBlockLists. However, it does not clarify includeRawTargeting or limit, leaving the schema coverage gap only partially filled.

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 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource: brand safety, suitability, placement, and context-control signals from ad account/ad set targeting and optional block-list edges. This distinguishes it from most siblings like meta_get_campaigns or meta_get_insights, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 implies the use case: use when you need brand safety or suitability information. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives, so an agent must infer selection from the tool name and topic rather than from clear routing instructions.

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