List Automated Ad Rules

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no mention of pagination, rate limits, result structure, or any side effects. It merely restates the purpose, providing no extra value over the 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 compact: a one-sentence summary followed by a minimal argument list. It is front-loaded with the action and scope, and every word earns its place. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not hint at the return shape (e.g., an array of rule objects), pagination, or what fields are included. For a list operation, this lack of output information leaves a gap, though the simplicity of the tool and the read-only annotations somewhat reduce the risk of misuse.

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 description documents ad_account_id as 'Ad account ID', adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. The response_format parameter is described in the schema itself (markdown/json with a default), and the tool description compensates for the schema's missing description of ad_account_id. Together, both parameters are well-understood.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists'), a resource ('automated rules'), and a scope ('for an ad account'), making it clear what the tool does. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling meta_get_ad_rule, which retrieves a single rule, and from meta_create_ad_rule or meta_delete_ad_rule.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need all rules for an ad account) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For example, it does not say 'Use meta_get_ad_rule to fetch a single rule.' The guidance is left to inference from the tool name rather than being spelled out.

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