meta_ads_ad_rules_list

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

The description labels the tool as 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, error handling, or rate limits. Without annotations, the description carries the burden but provides only basic 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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and return fields; the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description partially explains return fields (e.g., 'id, name, status ...') but lacks details on the full structure of evaluation_spec and execution_spec summaries. It does not cover error handling or edge cases, leaving some gaps for agent completeness.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions (account_id format and fallback, limit range and default). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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, specifying the verb 'Lists' and the resource 'Meta Automated Rules'. It also details the return fields (id, name, status, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like meta_ads_ad_rules_get (single rule) and mutating tools.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to audit existing automation before adding new rules or to find a rule_id before disabling / deleting an old one.' It clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like meta_ads_ad_rules_get.

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