getAdSets

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Get', implying read-only, but it does not state whether the operation is safe, non-destructive, or whether there are any side effects. It also fails to explain what happens when both accountId and campaignId are provided, or when neither is provided. The behavior around missing parameters and potential pagination is undocumented, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior.

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 sentence with two clauses, conveying the essential action and a key feature. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler or redundant details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and 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?

For a three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the relationship between accountId and campaignId (e.g., mutual exclusivity or precedence), nor does it mention pagination, response shape, or any error conditions. An agent needs more context on how to properly invoke this tool and interpret results, but the description leaves these gaps.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the phrase 'supports filtering by status', which is redundant since the schema already specifies the status enum and default. It also rephrases 'from a campaign or account' which is already captured by the parameter descriptions. No additional meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 ('Get') and resource ('ad sets') plus scope ('from a campaign or account'). It clearly indicates a list retrieval operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like getAdSetDetails or getAds, which could be confused with the same resource. The intent is clear but not fully differentiated from close siblings.

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 usage for retrieving ad sets at the campaign or account level, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like getCampaigns or getAdSetDetails. There is no mention of exclusions or when not to use it, so the agent must infer usage from the name and context. This is implied rather than explicit.

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