Meta Ads MCP

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 discloses that it returns interest data with specific fields (id, name, audience_size, path) and mentions optional token caching, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, authentication requirements beyond the token, or pagination behavior, leaving gaps for a search tool.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, and the subsequent bullet points efficiently document parameters and return values without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by the Returns section), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return values, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error cases or usage guidelines relative to siblings.

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 adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'query' is for search terms like 'baseball', 'access_token' is optional with caching behavior, and 'limit' has a default of 25. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could provide more examples or constraints.

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: 'Search for interest targeting options by keyword.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('interest targeting options'), and mechanism ('by keyword'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_behaviors' or 'search_demographics' that also search for targeting options but for different categories.

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 usage when searching for interests (e.g., for ad targeting), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_behaviors' or 'search_demographics'. It provides no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts beyond the general search function.

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