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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's added value is the disclosure of blind spots — advertiser identity verification, change history, diagnostics widget, invoices — and the cannotRead mechanism in the result, which lets the agent explain the gap instead of guessing. It stops short of noting auth/scope requirements or latency, 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-loaded with the returned fields, then the usage trigger, then exclusions and sibling routing — a sensible order. The field enumeration is somewhat dense but each item maps to a real answer the agent would need to quote, 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: it names the fields returned and the cannotRead list, and it explains which adjacent questions belong to sibling tools. An agent has enough to call it and to interpret the response without opening anything else.

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?

The single accountId parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the format example and the 'only needed when the sign-in can reach more than one account' condition. The description adds nothing about it, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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 enumerates exactly what is returned: lifecycle status, pause reason code, financial status, account mode, payment method type, last-modified metadata, and a needsAttention list. This is clearly distinguishable from msads_list_accounts (enumeration) and msads_get_campaigns (campaign-level pause reasons).

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 an explicit trigger ('Use it when asked whether the account is in good standing or why ads aren't serving') and explicitly routes the adjacent question to alternatives: msads_get_campaigns (statusMeaning) and msads_get_import_jobs for campaign-level pause reasons. It also carves out what this tool cannot answer.

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