meta_get_campaign_structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the return shape ('campaigns -> ad sets -> ads') and implies read-only behavior with 'Get'. However, it does not mention pagination, the effect of optional campaignId, or what fields each node contains, leaving notable gaps.

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 sentence with no filler: it front-loads the action and object, gives a compact hierarchy definition, and ends with a brief usage cue. Every clause adds value.

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 read-only structure tool with only two simple parameters, the description plus full schema coverage is sufficient for invocation and high-level return expectations. The optional campaignId behavior is documented in the schema. A little more detail on node fields would help, but the arrows communicate the essential shape.

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 100%, so both 'adAccountId' and 'campaignId' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get', names the resource 'hierarchical campaign structure', and defines the hierarchy as campaigns -> ad sets -> ads. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like meta_get_campaigns, meta_get_adsets, and meta_get_ads, which focus on a single level.

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 'Useful for understanding account organization' provides clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the hierarchy framing implies it is for multi-level structure rather than single-level list retrieval.

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