List Ad Sets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a usage constraint (provide either campaign_id or ad_account_id) but does not describe return structure, pagination behavior, or other behavioral details. With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate as some additional context is provided.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by a concise bullet list of args and a final constraint. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately structured for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the return looks like; it does not. It also fails to mention the response_format parameter (defaulting to markdown), which could affect how the agent interprets output. The constraint on providing either campaign_id or ad_account_id is mentioned, but other contextual details like pagination behavior are omitted. Given the absence of an output schema, more context is needed for full 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 50% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning for 'after' (pagination cursor) and 'limit' (max results default 20) which are not described in the schema. It also restates status_filter enum values. However, it omits the 'response_format' parameter entirely, which is described in the schema but not in the tool description, leaving a minor gap.

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 ad sets, specifying the scope as 'for a campaign or ad account'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like meta_list_ads (which lists ads) and meta_get_adset (which retrieves a single ad set) by its resource and filter options.

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 tells the agent to provide either campaign_id or ad_account_id, giving clear selection criteria. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools but the context is sufficient to understand when to use this tool. No explicit exclusions are given.

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