meta_list_ad_accounts

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

No annotations provided, so description entirely handles behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical detail: amount_spent is in minor units (cents/pence) requiring division by 100. It also mentions the SYSTEM-USER token behavior. However, it omits other traits like pagination or rate limits, though for a simple list operation this is acceptable.

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?

Extremely concise: three sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by a critical note and an alternative usage hint.

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?

No output schema exists, so description is the sole source for return values. It lists fields and a critical data format note. It does not mention pagination or limits, but for a straightforward list tool with no filters, this is reasonable.

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?

With 0 parameters, schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value by listing the fields returned and explaining the spend unit, which is not in the schema. This goes beyond the baseline of 4.

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 accounts accessible by the token, specifying the returned fields (id, name, status, spend, currency, business). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that for SYSTEM-USER tokens, meta_graph should be used instead.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use the tool (for user tokens) and when not to (SYSTEM-USER token returns [] and recommends meta_graph). Also gives context 'Start of an ads audit', helping the agent understand the use case.

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