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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does disclose a non-obvious trait: only accounts configured in the Adsap web app appear, hidden accounts are counted by meta.accounts_requiring_setup, and the remediation path is spelled out. It stops short of pagination/cursor behavior and auth scope, so not a 5.

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-loads the skill prerequisite and purpose before the constraint and platform rule, and every sentence carries actionable content. It is slightly inflated by imperative policy phrasing ('Never let a platform-unspecified question silently become Meta-only'), but nothing is redundant 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover intent, returns, and constraints — and it does: return fields, list-inclusion rule, the hidden-account counter, and cross-platform routing. The one real hole is the unexplained limit/cursor/status_filter inputs.

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% and the description adds nothing about limit, cursor, or status_filter — it only describes the response fields (status, currency, timezone). With three undocumented parameters including an enum, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb (list) and resource (Meta ad accounts the user manages), adds the return payload (status, currency, timezone) and the intended use (pick an account). It also names the sibling that covers the other platform (adsap_google_list_ad_accounts), so an agent can distinguish this from its nearest neighbor without opening a schema.

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 when-to-use ('Use to pick an account'), a prerequisite (load the adsap-ads skill first), and a conditional routing rule: when the user's question doesn't name a platform, also call adsap_google_list_ad_accounts or state you are Meta-only. This is about as complete as routing guidance gets.

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