List Meta Ads campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns status and budget, which is useful, but it does not disclose pagination, default account behavior, or whether the result is a summary or full list. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is concise and readable, though it could add a brief note about the optional account_id default without much cost.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not mention pagination, result format, or the fact that account_id defaults to an environment variable, which an agent might need to know for correct invocation. The annotations cover safety, but the description leaves some operational context implicit.

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% for the single optional parameter, and the description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents account_id, including the 'no act_ prefix' and default behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Meta campaigns') and mentions the key fields returned ('status and budget'). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like meta_ads_get_ad_status, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with meta_ads_list_ads_by_status.

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 a read-only listing use case, and the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) reinforce that it is safe to call. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like google_ads_list_campaigns or meta_ads_list_ads_by_status, leaving the agent to infer from the name and platform.

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