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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool 'returns a scorecard' and lists the health dimensions, implying a read-only diagnostic. However, it does not explicitly say it makes no changes, mention required permissions, or describe account-access expectations.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and uses a scannable list of health dimensions. It is efficient without being sparse, although the enumerated list is slightly long.

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?

For a single-parameter health check with no output schema, the description gives enough context: what the tool returns, which areas it covers, and when it is useful. It could mention permissions or explicit read-only behavior, but the core invocation context is complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single ad_account_id parameter, including the act_ prefix requirement. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating that it concerns a Meta ad account.

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 states a specific verb and resource: a comprehensive health check on a Meta ad account that returns a scorecard. It enumerates the covered areas (account status, payment health, Pixel health, etc.), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_account_summary or get_pixel_health.

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 gives clear use context by positioning the tool as a 'foundation for audits and readiness checks.' It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the intended scenario is evident.

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