get_adset_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'gets detailed information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements (beyond the optional access_token), rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes. The description is minimal and lacks crucial context for safe and effective use.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly. The 'Args' section and example are relevant but could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, though the example is somewhat redundant with the args explanation.

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 an output schema (which likely defines the return structure), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, 2 parameters (one optional), and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete: it lacks behavioral context (e.g., auth, errors) and doesn't fully document parameters. It's minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds some semantics: it explains 'adset_id' as 'Meta Ads ad set ID' and 'access_token' as 'Meta API access token (optional - will use cached token if not provided).' This clarifies the token's optionality and caching behavior, but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap (e.g., no format or constraints for adset_id).

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's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific ad set.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('ad set'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_adsets' (which likely lists multiple) by focusing on a single specific ad set. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_ad_details' or other detail-retrieval tools.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_adsets' (for listing) or 'get_ad_details' (for ad-level details), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts where this tool is preferred. The example only shows how to call it, not when.

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