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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, yet the description still adds value beyond them: it states the call runs immediately, costs nothing against task quota, and touches Adako's database only with no platform calls. Those latency/cost/blast-radius disclosures are exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call it mid-failure.

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?

Front-loaded with the read-only/cost banner and the use-when condition early, which is the right ordering. The emoji and cost line are slightly decorative but genuinely informative for an agent budgeting calls, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: token health states and actionable fix links are described. Combined with the trigger conditions and cost model, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly in a failure path.

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?

Only one optional parameter (raw_data) and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description never mentions it, adding no syntax or formatting guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: every connected platform login, its token health (active / needs re-authorisation / revoked), and the active + primary ad accounts under it. It's clearly distinguishable from the many *_ads_write and performance siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from list_connected_accounts, the nearest sibling, which weakens it slightly.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: when a platform tool failed with not_connected or needs_reauth, or before the first platform call in a conversation. That is genuinely actionable. It names no alternatives or when-not conditions (e.g. vs list_connected_accounts), so it stops short of a 5.

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