List the product sets in a Meta catalog

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses additional behavioral details: the operation is read-only and costs 0 credits, empty lists indicate a catalog issue rather than an empty response, and zero-product sets can bind silently leading to wasted ad spend. These are not implied by the annotations and add significant transparency.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear definition, then usage guidance, edge cases, and cost. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value; no fluff. Could be slightly tighter but remains efficient.

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?

Covers the main purpose, workflow context, and critical edge cases, plus cost. However, it does not describe the return structure (e.g., whether counts are included), which could be helpful given there is no output schema. Minor gap but overall complete for practical use.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly (catalogId with a note about numeric ids, limit with range and default). The description does not add new parameter-specific meaning; it references catalogId usage in the workflow but doesn't elaborate beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists product sets within a catalog, explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_meta_catalog_products and list_meta_catalogs. It defines what a product set is and clarifies its role in ad creation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: before building a catalog ad, passing the chosen id as productSetId to create_meta_adset or create_meta_ad. It also warns about edge cases like empty lists pointing at the catalog and zero-product sets binding without error, which are essential for correct usage.

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