meta_ads_catalogs_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly declares 'Read-only', lists the return fields, and implies the response includes linked ad_accounts. It does not mention error cases or permissions, but for a simple read operation this is adequate and adds value beyond 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 concise sentences: the first states the action and return values; the second provides targeted usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema or annotations, the description is quite complete for a simple get operation: it names the return fields, explains prerequisite context (catalog_id from list), and gives specific use cases. It stops short of a 5 because it does not mention potential error responses or the behavior when a catalog is not found, but for a read-only fetch this is a minor gap.

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%, with both catalog_id and account_id clearly documented. The tool description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema, but it reinforces the purpose via 'single Product Catalog' and references catalog_id being returned by meta_ads_catalogs_list. This matches the baseline 3 for high schema 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 uses a specific verb 'Fetches' and a clear resource 'full detail record for a single Product Catalog', distinguishing it from catalog list tools. It lists the exact return fields (id, name, product_count, vertical, feed_count, owner_business_id, linked ad_accounts), making the tool's function unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Call this before meta_ads_catalogs_delete or before building a Collection creative (meta_ads_creatives_create_collection) to verify product_count > 0.' This is clear context, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with alternative get tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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