meta_ads_ad_rules_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly discloses read-only behavior and lists the return field categories, but doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or error conditions. This is adequate but not rich; it covers safety (read-only) but leaves some operational details to the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Lists...'), and every sentence adds value: the first defines scope and return fields, the second gives concrete use cases. No filler or redundancy.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return values, and use cases. It doesn't explain pagination or sorting, but that's not critical for selecting/invoking correctly. The description provides enough context for an agent to act on.

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 the schema already explains both parameters (limit and account_id). The description doesn't add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. 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 Meta Automated Rules, identifies the resource (ad account), and specifies the returned fields (id, name, status, evaluation_spec, execution_spec, schedule). It distinguishes itself from sibling ad rule tools (get, update, create, delete) by explicitly focusing on listing.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this to audit existing automation before adding new rules or to find a rule_id before disabling / deleting an old one.' This clearly tells the agent when to call this tool versus alternatives, and the 'Read-only' note implies it's not for making changes.

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