meta_ads_split_tests_get

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

Declares read-only nature and describes the return structure. With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it mentions read-only and post-condition (test concluded). However, it does not address auth requirements or rate limits, which would push towards 5.

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?

Three sentences, each contributing: purpose, return fields, and usage guidance. No redundancy, front-loaded, and efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description fully covers what is returned and when to use. The mention of cells structure is sufficient. No gaps detected.

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%. The description adds value by explaining account_id is optional falling back to credentials, and study_id is 'as returned by meta_ads_split_tests_list', which clarifies the source of that parameter.

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 it fetches the full detail record for a single Split Test, listing the exact fields returned (id, name, status, cells, winner_cell_id, etc.). It distinguishes itself from the sibling meta_ads_split_tests_list by specifying that it returns per-cell results and is for post-test reading.

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 instructs to call after a test ends to read the winner, and advises to use meta_ads_split_tests_list for the raw list. This provides clear when-to-use and an alternative.

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