Search Meta Ad Library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it requires a valid access token but not ad account ownership, and it describes return contents (ad creatives, spend ranges, impressions, demographics, targeting info). It does not mention rate limits or pagination behavior, but the read-only nature is covered. No contradiction with 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 well-organized with a brief lead sentence and a clear parameter list. It is appropriately detailed for a tool with 10 parameters, but it repeats some information already present in the schema (e.g., default values) and misses response_format. No fluff, but could be slightly tighter.

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's complexity (10 parameters, 1 required), the description covers the core purpose, authentication requirements, parameter semantics (except response_format), and return value types. It does not explain parameter interactions (e.g., whether search_terms and search_page_ids are exclusive) or provide examples. The missing response_format is a significant gap for an agent that might want machine-readable output. Otherwise, quite complete.

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 60%, so the description helps fill gaps. It clarifies each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'Pagination cursor' for after, 'Max results (1–100, default 25)' for limit) and adds meaning for ad_type and ad_active_status. However, it entirely omits the response_format parameter present in the schema, leaving that parameter undocumented in the description. It does add value for most parameters.

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 verb 'searches' and the resource 'Meta Ad Library', and explicitly frames it as a transparency tool accessible without ad account ownership, which distinguishes it from all ad-management siblings like meta_list_ads or meta_get_ad. The scope ('any advertiser') is unambiguous.

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 its use case (transparency, no ad account access required) and notes that it needs only a valid access token. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the clear separation from ad-management tools makes the usage context understandable. Exclusions are not stated, so a small deduction.

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