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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, the description discloses that a plaintext warnings field appears when something is off, that the returned timezone governs how naive timestamps in meta_create_adset/meta_update_adset are interpreted, and that Meta rejects budgets below higher per-objective minimums (error surfaces at creation). That is meaningful behavioral context the annotations do not carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned status fields, then the diagnostic use case, then the ancillary timezone and minimum-budget notes. Dense but every clause is actionable; the minimum-budget passage is the longest and slightly drifting into guidance for the adset tools.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return values, yet it still flags the warnings field and the timezone/budget semantics an agent must know to act on the result. Purpose, trigger, parameter, and downstream implications are all covered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: the single workspace parameter is explained as the customer workspace slug and explicitly marked optional when only one workspace exists. Full coverage of the only parameter, though no format examples.

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 names the resource (Meta ad account) and enumerates exactly which state fields are returned: status, block reason, spend limit, consumed budget, credit balance, and payment method. This clearly separates it from listing siblings like meta_list_ad_accounts or performance tools like meta_campaign_performance.

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 states a concrete use case: the fastest way to rule out a reached account spend limit or a missing payment method as the cause of stalled delivery. It also explains the pre-flight role of min_daily_budget_eur before setting budgets via meta_create_adset/meta_update_adset. It lacks an explicit 'not for X' exclusion, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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