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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the effect is account-scoped only ('other accounts still see them'), the change is reversible via hidden:false, and there are plan and auth-scope gates. It does not describe the response payload, but that is minor given the safety profile is well covered.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the write/mutation marker and the primary action, followed by the scoping and prerequisite details. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers scope, reversibility, and access requirements. The only gap is the absence of any statement about the return value, which matters slightly since no output schema exists.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the hidden default and the warning to use Sonar ids rather than Meta ad_id. The description only restates the restore semantics with 'hidden: false' and adds nothing about batch limits or id sourcing beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'WRITE tool' marker, then states the specific verb+resource: remove ads from this account's scans, with the inverse operation (hidden: false) named in the same sentence. An agent can distinguish this from read-oriented siblings like sonar_ad_spy_ads without opening the schema.

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?

Gives real operational preconditions — per-account scope, Indie/Agency plan (trial counts), authorized account or write-scoped API key. It does not name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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