Get Meta Ad Sets by Ad Account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains pagination (use meta_ads_fetch_pagination_url), lists filter operators and effective status options, mentions date presets and time ranges, and describes the return structure. No contradictions 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 appropriately sized for a tool with 12 parameters. It is structured with Args and Returns sections, keeping the main purpose upfront. Each sentence contributes information; however, some details (e.g., common fields list) could be slightly abbreviated without losing value. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers most aspects: required parameter (act_id), filtering, pagination, date handling, status filtering, and a link to a pagination sibling tool. It lacks explanation of the response data structure in more detail (e.g., how fields map to ad set properties) and doesn't mention rate limits or limits on results per call beyond the limit parameter. Overall, it is fairly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing common field examples (id, name, daily_budget, etc.), effective status enumeration details, a filtering example syntax (e.g., {field: 'daily_budget', operator: 'GREATER_THAN', value: 1000}), and explains pagination cursors. These go beyond the schema's parameter 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 clearly states the tool retrieves all ad sets from a specific Meta ad account with filtering and pagination. The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'ad sets' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like meta_ads_get_adsets_by_campaign by specifying the scope is all ad sets from an ad account, not filtered by campaign.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (when needing ad sets from an ad account). It implies when not to use it (e.g., for a single ad set use get_adset_by_id, or for campaign-specific use get_adsets_by_campaign) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The inclusion of pagination guidance and filtering examples further aids usage.

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