meta_search_entities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does communicate the core behavior: searching by name within an ad account. However, it does not disclose matching semantics beyond what the schema already says, return behavior, or any rate/limit considerations, leaving a modest transparency gap.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core search scope front-loaded. No filler or redundancy; every clause contributes.

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 simple search tool with 80% schema coverage, the description plus schema covers the essential call shape. It is incomplete in guiding choice among siblings and in describing expected return output, especially since there is no output schema.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by name' maps to nameFilter and enumerates entityType values, but it adds no meaning for adAccountId, limit, or statusFilter beyond the schema descriptions.

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 names a specific action (Search), specific resources (campaigns, ad sets, or ads), and a scoping attribute (by name within an ad account). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling retrieval tools like meta_get_campaigns, meta_get_adsets, and meta_get_ads.

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?

It gives an implicit use case ('Useful for finding specific entities') but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over the sibling get_* tools or mention exclusions/alternatives. The guidance is adequate but leaves routing to the agent's inference.

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