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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so "Read only; no spend" largely restates structured data, though the no-spend framing adds a bit of cost reassurance. No real added context is given about pagination, filtering behavior, or how an open-world external source affects results.

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 short, which is good, but the space is spent on a namespace prefix and an opaque resource URI rather than on the information an agent actually needs. Front-loading is fine; the content is not.

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, six parameters including a nested object, and only a required accountId documented, the description should at minimum explain what is returned and how accountId/platform scope the results. It does none of this, leaving the agent to guess at a nontrivial list operation.

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?

Six parameters at 50% schema description coverage: confirm, requestId, and adAccountId are documented in the schema, while platform, accountId, and the nested parameters object are undocumented in either place. The description supplies no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap; the trailing "Fields: soclo://..." URI is a pointer, not semantics.

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 states a verb and resource ("List advertisable apps"), but "advertisable applications" is never defined, and in a namespace with dozens of list_* siblings (list_ad_accounts, list_ad_creatives, list_ad_catalogs, list_meta_businesses) the agent cannot tell what entity is being enumerated or why this list differs from those. The opening "Soclo Ads:" is just a namespace prefix restating the tool name.

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" hints that it is safe to call freely, but there is no statement of when to use this versus soclo_ads_list_ad_accounts or soclo_ads_list_ads_business_centers, no prerequisites, and no indication of what an "advertisable app" is needed for.

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