List Offline Event Sets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the return format ('Event set IDs, names, and configuration'), but does not elaborate on behavioral details like rate limits or authentication requirements 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 concise and well-structured with a brief intro followed by a bullet-style args list. Every sentence adds value, and the key purpose is front-loaded. No extraneous information is present.

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 has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the resource, all parameters (except response_format), and return. It covers pagination via the 'after' cursor and explicitly states the returned fields. Minor omission of response_format prevents a 5.

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 25% (only response_format has a description). The description covers 3 of 4 parameters (ad_account_id, limit, after) with brief explanations (e.g., 'Ad account ID (e.g., act_123456789)'), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it omits the response_format parameter entirely, which is important for output control.

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 offline conversion event sets for an ad account,' specifying the verb (list), resource (offline event sets), and scope (ad account). It also explains what offline event sets are, making the purpose distinct and differentiating from sibling tools like meta_get_pixel or meta_list_custom_conversions.

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, such as meta_send_offline_event or other list tools. It lacks explicit context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria for tool selection.

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