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 bar is lower; the description adds genuine value by disclosing the owner-approval gate, requestId reuse for recovery, and the spending implication of duplication. The sentence "Claim live only when status is active" is opaque and adds ambiguity rather than clarity, which keeps this from 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?

Very compact and front-loaded: the verb and resource come first, then the confirmation constraint. The trailing "Fields: soclo://tools/soclo_ads_duplicate_ad" pointer is a low-value line, and "Claim live only when status is active" is compressed to the point of being unparseable, but nothing is padded.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with 10 parameters, nested payload options, and no output schema, the description covers the approval gate — the most important part — but omits what gets created (naming/status inheritance behavior), what the response returns for outcome recovery, and how the expectedBudget* fields relate to the preview. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 60%, so the description would need to carry weight, and it only explains confirm and requestId — both of which the schema already documents. The nested payload options (renameStrategy, renamePrefix/Suffix, statusOption, syncAfter, reuseSourceCreative) and the expectedCurrency/expectedBudget* approval fields are never given meaning in the description. The vague "status is active" hint may gesture at statusOption but is not resolvable.

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 ("Duplicate an ad"), which is clearly distinguishable from the siblings soclo_ads_duplicate_ad_campaign and soclo_ads_duplicate_ad_set by scope. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the resource naming alone lets an agent pick 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?

The description establishes a required two-step flow: preview spending/deletion, then resend with confirm:true and the same requestId, which is real usage guidance. It never says when to duplicate versus create a fresh ad (soclo_ads_create_standalone_ad), nor does it describe preconditions such as required account/ad permissions, leaving the alternative-selection question open.

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