meta_ads_ads_list

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full transparency burden. It discloses read-only nature, explains the semantics of 'status' vs 'effective_status' (including pausing applied outside mureo or inherited), and clarifies that missing issues_info means nothing reported, not a cleared check. This is strong behavioral context, though it omits details like pagination behavior or rate limits.

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 dense but well-structured block; each sentence adds value—list scope, return fields, status semantics, read-only note, and usage guidance. It is longer than the minimal viable description but avoids fluff and front-loads the core purpose. Slight over-packing prevents a perfect score.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, which it does thoroughly: lists returned fields, distinguishes status from effective_status, and clarifies issues_info/ad_review_feedback semantics. It also covers the optional scoping and provides next-step tools, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the optionality of ad_set_id and the fallback behavior of account_id, but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. The 'limit' parameter is explained in the schema with defaults and caps, and the description adds no new syntax or format details.

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-resource pair ('Lists ads in a Meta Ads account') and clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting optional scoping to one ad set and by directing users to meta_ads_creatives_list for creative details. It also differentiates the list behavior from ad-specific tools like update/pause/get.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to find an ad_id before calling ads.update / pause / enable, or to audit which creatives are in flight.' It also provides an alternative for creative content ('For the creative itself... follow up with meta_ads_creatives_list'), making the usage context and exclusions clear.

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