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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: an approval gate keyed to spending/deletion with a reused requestId, and the post-condition that the catalog is not live until status reads active. It stops short of saying what exactly is spent or what side effects accompany catalog creation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by the safety procedure — no padding. The trailing "Fields: soclo://tools/soclo_ads_create_ad_catalog" is cryptic noise whose meaning is not explained, slightly weakening an otherwise tight entry.

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 10-parameter, non-idempotent, destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers the approval workflow but leaves the payload contract and the mismatch-prone expected*/budget parameters unexplained, and says nothing about what a successful response returns beyond the status phrase. Annotations carry the safety burden, but the parameter story is incomplete.

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 coverage is 60%, and the description mostly restates what the schema already documents for confirm and requestId (owner approval, requestId reuse) rather than adding detail. The nested payload fields (name, vertical, businessId, catalogAccountId) and the four expected*/platform parameters are undocumented in either place, so the agent gets no help on the hardest part of the call.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Create a Meta product catalog," which is clearly distinct from sibling catalog tools like create_ad_catalog_feed, create_ad_catalog_product, and create_ad_catalog_product_set. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings to differentiate, but the resource noun is precise enough that an agent can route correctly.

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?

It lays out a concrete procedural rule: preview first, then owner-approved confirm:true reusing the same requestId, and only treat the entity as live when status is active. That is clear usage guidance for a mutating tool, though it never names which sibling performs the preview or checks status (e.g. soclo_ads_operation_status), leaving the agent to infer the partner tools.

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