meta_ads_products_get

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only,' disclosing the non-destructive nature of the operation. It also explains the behavioral purpose of checking review_status for ad delivery. However, it does not cover authentication requirements or potential error conditions, which are minor gaps given no annotations.

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 three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action, listing returns, and providing usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or filler information.

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?

For a simple read tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return fields, and a key use case. It could mention error scenarios or rate limits, but the given context is largely complete given the tool's simplicity and sibling context.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (account_id and product_id), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 'Fetches the full detail record for a single catalog product,' specifying the verb and resource. It lists the exact fields returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like meta_ads_products_list (which lists multiple products) and meta_ads_products_update (which modifies).

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 a specific scenario: 'Call this when DPA delivery stalls for a specific product to check review_status.' It implies when to use this tool over others, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives by name.

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