meta_ads_split_tests_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read-only' but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or how it handles large result sets (though the limit parameter is mentioned). This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 two sentences plus a brief list, front-loaded with the action and resource, then usage. Every sentence is necessary and no redundant 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 list tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers return fields, usage flow with siblings, and the read-only nature. It lacks explicit mention of filtering or pagination details but is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 already covers both parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds value by explaining that account_id is optional and falls back to credentials, and that limit has a default of 50 and max of 1000. This extra context aids correct invocation.

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 lists Split Tests (A/B Tests) in the ad account, specifies the return fields, and distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating it is used to find a study_id before fetching details or ending tests.

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 guides when to use this tool ('use this to find a study_id before pulling detailed results or ending') and names the alternative tools (meta_ads_split_tests_get, meta_ads_split_tests_end). It also notes the tool is read-only, which helps the agent decide on appropriate use.

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