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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing that this is an asynchronous background job requiring polling, plus admin and feature prerequisites. It does not explain the destructive or non-idempotent implications (e.g. repeated calls may re-queue work).

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism, then the follow-up step, then prerequisites in bold. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 correctly explains that results are not returned directly but must be polled from the list. It covers async behavior and auth gating. It leaves the destructive/non-idempotent semantics unexplained, which is the only meaningful gap for a zero-parameter tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the description introduces none, so there is no schema semantics to clarify or contradict. Baseline 4 applies per the rules for a parameterless tool.

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 and resource — 'Discover ad accounts from Meta' — and clarifies the mechanism ('Queues a background discovery of the ad accounts reachable through the connected Pages'). This cleanly separates it from the sibling list_facebook_ad_accounts, since the description frames this as the discovery step whose result is later polled.

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?

Provides a clear workflow context: run this, then 'poll the list to see the result', which implicitly routes the agent to the list tool. It also states prerequisites (administrators only, facebook_marketing feature). It stops short of explicitly naming list_facebook_ad_accounts or stating when this is unnecessary (e.g. when accounts are already known).

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