meta_ads_audiences_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read-only,' which conveys that the operation does not mutate data. It also hints at dependencies by mentioning that audience_id is returned by meta_ads_audiences_list. However, it does not disclose potential error states, rate limits, or specific authentication requirements beyond the implicit Meta Ads API context.

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 succinct—four short sentences that cover the core purpose, return fields, behavioral note (read-only), and usage suggestion. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or excessive detail. The structure is front-loaded with the primary action and outputs, making it easy for an agent to understand quickly.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description adequately lists the key return fields (id, name, subtype, description, retention_days, approximate_count, data_source, rule, pixel_id). It also covers the typical workflow context (call before delete or lookalike). For a simple get operation with only two parameters, the description is complete for an agent to use 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?

Input schema coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it confirms that account_id is optional and falls back to credentials, and notes that audience_id should come from meta_ads_audiences_list. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description provides only marginal added value.

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 fetches the full detail record for a single Custom Audience, listing the return fields (rule definition, approximate_count, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like meta_ads_audiences_list and meta_ads_audiences_delete by specifying it is a read-only 'get' operation and even suggests calling it before delete or lookalike creation to verify the audience.

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 guidance on when to use the tool: 'Call this before meta_ads_audiences_delete or before create_lookalike to verify you have the right audience.' It also labels the operation as 'Read-only,' which implies usage context. However, it does not elaborate on alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, though the usage suggestion is clear.

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