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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so 'Read only; no spend' merely repeats structured data rather than adding context. Nothing is said about whether the confirm/requestId parameters matter for this read path, what the call requires in terms of connection state, or anything beyond the annotations.

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?

The first two sentences are tight and front-loaded, but the third sentence ('Fields: soclo://tools/soclo_ads_get_ad_account_finance') is an unhelpful pointer that tells the agent nothing and wastes space in an otherwise minimal description.

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 6-parameter tool with a nested object, a confusing confirm flag, no output schema, and a large sibling set of ad tools, the description is far too thin. It never explains what finances are returned, how accountId differs from adAccountId, or whether confirm is relevant here.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage across 6 parameters (including a nested 'parameters' object and two similar id fields, accountId and adAccountId), the description should clarify parameter meaning but offers none. The single 'Fields: soclo://tools/...' line is an opaque URI reference, not usable parameter guidance.

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 name/title ('Ad account finances') is restated as 'Soclo Ads: Ad account finances', so the description adds little beyond a tautology. 'Read only; no spend' does hint at scope, but it never says which financial data is returned (balance, billing, spend limits), and it does not distinguish this from siblings like soclo_ads_list_ad_accounts or soclo_ads_get_ad_account_hierarchy.

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?

'Read only; no spend' implies this is the safe lookup path, but the description names no alternatives, no prerequisites, and no condition for choosing this over the many other ad-account read tools. An agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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