List Business Manager Assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds modest context by stating that results respect a limit and return asset details including IDs, names, and type-specific metadata, but it does not disclose pagination, access prerequisites, or response edge cases.

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 and front-loaded, with a clear one-line purpose followed by a structured Args/Returns breakdown. Every sentence adds useful content, and there is no filler or redundant annotation duplication.

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 read-only listing tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description supplies required inputs, allowed asset types, limit behavior, and a return-value summary. It is slightly incomplete because it does not mention response_format and does not guide the agent toward specialized sibling tools when only one asset type is needed.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, and the description mostly repeats business_id, asset_type values, and the limit default/maximum rather than adding new meaning. It helpfully lists the allowed asset_type values, but it omits response_format entirely; the schema compensates for that omission.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Lists assets... for a Business Manager') and enumerates the asset types, so an agent can tell this is a Business Manager asset listing. It stops short of explicitly differentiating this aggregate tool from sibling tools like meta_list_ad_accounts, meta_list_pixels, or meta_list_instagram_accounts.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the more specialized sibling listing tools. The agent must infer intended usage from the name and asset_type enum; there is no when/when-not or alternative routing.

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