List A/B Tests (Ad Studies)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns 'a list of studies with name, type, status, dates, and results,' which provides context about the output but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply.

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: a one-line purpose, followed by bulleted arguments and a returns line. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 list tool, the description covers the core operation, required parameter, and return fields. However, it fails to mention the response_format parameter, which is part of the input schema. Given no output schema, the returns description partially compensates, but missing parameter documentation reduces completeness.

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 67%, with ad_account_id and response_format described in schema. The tool description adds a description for limit (missing from schema), but omits response_format. Thus it adds some meaning but not complete over existing schema info.

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 'Lists A/B tests (ad studies) for a Meta ad account.' This is a specific verb-resource combination, and the title 'List A/B Tests' aligns perfectly. Among siblings, it is distinct from meta_create_ad_study and meta_get_ad_study_results.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that meta_get_ad_study_results is for retrieving results of a specific study. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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