get_ads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional filtering' and default values, but doesn't describe important behaviors like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the token parameter, error conditions, or what happens when no ads match filters. For a read operation with 5 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by a parameter breakdown. Each parameter explanation is concise and directly relevant. There's no wasted text, though the formatting with 'Args:' and bullet-like structure could be slightly more polished. Overall, it's efficiently sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description is moderately complete. The parameter explanations are strong, but behavioral aspects are under-specified. The output schema existence means return values don't need description, but other contextual factors like authentication flow, error handling, and sibling tool relationships are missing. For a read operation with filtering, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose, format requirements for account_id, optional nature of access_token with fallback behavior, default value for limit, and filtering purpose for campaign_id and adset_id. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds meaningful context beyond just parameter names.

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 ('Get') and resource ('ads for a Meta Ads account'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_ad_details' or 'search_ads_archive', which might also retrieve ad information. The description is specific about the target system (Meta Ads) but lacks sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_ad_details', 'search_ads_archive', and 'get_ad_creatives', there's no indication of when this list/filter tool is appropriate versus more specific retrieval tools. The optional filtering is mentioned but without context about when filtering is useful.

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