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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the returned fields (status, currency, timezone) and the platform-scope limitation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, whether the list is ordered, or what happens when the user has no accounts. The description adds some behavioral context but not a full picture.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose is in the first sentence, and the platform rule is clearly separated. The PLATFORM RULE is somewhat long but earns its place because it prevents a common silent failure. No wasted words, though the rule could be slightly tightened.

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 simple list tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, why to use it, and the critical cross-platform caveat. It does not describe pagination or error cases, but those are minor for this tool's complexity. The platform rule is the most important contextual element and it is present.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any of the three parameters (limit, cursor, status_filter). The description only mentions the returned fields, not how to filter or paginate. The schema itself provides defaults and enums, so the parameters are partially self-documenting, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('Meta ad accounts the user manages'), and the key returned fields (status, currency, timezone). It also explicitly distinguishes this from the Google sibling by naming the platform, so an agent can tell it apart from adsap_google_list_ad_accounts without opening the 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use to pick an account') and, more importantly, a PLATFORM RULE that tells the agent when this tool alone is insufficient: if the user's question does not name a platform, the agent must also call adsap_google_list_ad_accounts and present both platforms together, or explicitly state it is only covering Meta. This is strong routing guidance with a clear alternative and a clear exclusion condition.

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