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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral details: data is fetched 'live from Meta' and an empty list means no issues detected. However, it does not discuss auth requirements, rate limits, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior (though implied by 'get'). This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose with examples, empty-list semantics, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler.

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 read-only diagnostics tool, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and how to interpret an empty result. It lacks output structure details, but the schema handles parameter limits and the tool is low-risk. With no annotations, it could be more thorough, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (limit default/max, catalog_id source from adsap_list_catalogs, ad_account_id scoping). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource combination: 'Get data-quality diagnostics for a Meta product catalog' with concrete examples (broken images, missing fields, policy violations). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_catalog_details or get_product_details, which focus on data rather than diagnostics.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when products aren't showing in ads or the user asks about catalog health.' This is clear context, but it does not mention alternatives or specify when not to use the tool, so it falls 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.