meta_ads_catalogs_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' discloses that catalogs live at the business level, and lists return fields. This is comprehensive for a list tool, though it could mention rate limits or other behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise with four impactful sentences covering purpose, return fields, read-only nature, and usage context. Every sentence provides distinct value with no wasted words.

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 adequately explains the return values. It also clarifies the business-level ownership and links to related tools. For a straightforward list tool, this is complete and sufficient.

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%, and the description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The baseline is 3 because the description does not augment the schema, but it does not repeat it verbatim either.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists Meta Commerce Catalogs owned by a Business, specifies the returned fields, and explicitly mentions it is read-only. It also distinguishes itself by referencing sibling tools meta_ads_catalogs_get and meta_ads_catalogs_delete, making the purpose 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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: as a prerequisite to find a catalog_id before calling get/delete or managing products/feeds. While it does not extensively compare to non-catalog siblings, it effectively differentiates within its family and gives actionable usage context.

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