meta_get_business_assets

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key safety trait 'read-only' and conditions results on permissions. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or how partial access is reported, which would be valuable for this unannotated read tool.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and scope, enumerates the covered assets, and conveys the read-only, permission-dependent nature. No filler 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should specify the response shape, pagination semantics, and failure/permission-denied behavior, but it does not. An agent is left to infer how limit and cursor affect results and what the returned business/page/Instagram/pixel/dataset records look like.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3; cursor, businessId, and adAccountId already have descriptions in the schema. The description lists asset types but does not clarify how limit applies (per asset type vs. total) or how the parameters select among businesses/pages/pixels/datasets, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 clear verb ('Discover'), a resource ('Meta Business assets'), and enumerates the asset types covered (businesses, pages, Instagram accounts, pixels, datasets), so an agent knows what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like meta_get_pages or meta_get_pixels, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 'Discover accessible ... when permissions allow' implies a discovery/access-checking use case and notes the permission prerequisite. It provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this aggregate tool over the specialized per-asset sibling tools or what conditions would make a sibling preferable.

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