List Meta ads by review status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description's 'List' is consistent with them. The description adds account scoping and the effective_status filter, but it does not disclose pagination, return shape, or open-world caveats; with annotations present this is a reasonable but not additive profile.

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 the verb and resource front-loaded, followed immediately by the filter dimension. Every part is informative and there is no unnecessary wording.

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?

The tool is simple and annotations cover its safety profile, but the description leaves account_id's apparent requirement unclear given that no parameters are marked required in the schema, and there is no output schema or mention of what fields are returned. It is adequate for a basic list tool but not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description identifies effective_status as the filter and provides the DISAPPROVED example, adding some meaning beyond the raw schema. However, account_id is only implied by 'in an account', and the status values are already enumerated in the schema, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 and resource — 'List ads in an account' — and names the filter dimension effective_status with a concrete example. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like meta_ads_list_campaigns (different resource) and meta_ads_get_ad_status (single ad lookup), even without naming them explicitly.

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 'filtered by effective_status (e.g. DISAPPROVED)' implies the tool is for retrieving ads by review status, but it never states when to prefer this over meta_ads_get_ad_status or mentions exclusions/alternatives. The usage context is present only implicitly.

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