meta_ads_ads_list

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It declares the operation as 'Read-only' and lists return fields. It mentions optional scoping and implicitly that it's a list operation, but does not elaborate on pagination behavior beyond the parameter description, rate limits, or error scenarios. The transparency is good but could be more detailed.

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 consists of four concise sentences, each adding value: core function, return fields and read-only nature, usage scenario, and follow-up recommendation. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no extraneous text.

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 lists the specific fields returned, which is helpful. It also provides usage context and a critical dependency chain (find ad_id before updating). However, it lacks information on error handling, empty results, or rate limits, making it slightly incomplete for a fully autonomous agent.

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 each parameter (account_id format and fallback, ad_set_id restriction, limit with default and max). The tool description adds the context of 'optionally scoped to one ad set' but does not provide significant new parameter-level depth beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 action ('Lists ads'), the resource ('ads in a Meta Ads account'), and the optional scoping to one ad set. It lists the returned fields and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly recommending use before ads.update/pause/enable and pointing to meta_ads_creatives_list for creative details.

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 use cases: 'Use this to find an ad_id before calling ads.update / pause / enable, or to audit which creatives are in flight.' It also suggests a follow-up tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for non-listing tasks) or provide alternatives beyond the creative follow-up.

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