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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that content is Meta-sourced diagnostic aggregates, but says nothing about latency, whether data is cached or freshly queried from Meta, or partial-failure behavior for account connections.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler, and the most important content (account health / opportunity score) is front-loaded. The lack of a leading verb makes it read as a label list, but nothing 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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, so return values and parameters need no explanation in prose. What is missing is operational context: prerequisites for the Meta account connection, whether sections are independently expensive, and when this diagnostic should be preferred over querying campaign performance.

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 100%: both `sections` (with the valid enum list and the default excluding ab_tests) and `account_id` override are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating the same section names, 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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns: opportunity score with ranked recommendations, pixel EMQ diagnostics, catalog diagnostics, and A/B test results. It is clearly a read-only Meta ad account diagnostic, distinguishable from siblings like query_campaign_performance or get_account_context. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'/'fetches'), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as query_campaign_performance, get_account_context, or creative_report, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage signal is implicit in the section names, so the agent must infer routing from the sibling list.

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