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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds value beyond annotations by noting the 'Pro' requirement and specifying the categories of delivery problems inspected. It stops short of explaining the output shape, but the added behavioral context is meaningful.

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 description is three concise segments: the core purpose with specific examples, the read-only nature, and the Pro requirement. The key action is front-loaded, and every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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?

This is a fairly simple one-parameter, read-only tool, so the description is minimally viable. However, it does not explain the single input parameter, nor does it clarify what the returned 'flags' look like since there is no output schema. For a tool without meaningful structured metadata, these omissions matter.

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%, and the description does not mention meta_account_id at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no format, optionality, or context beyond the schema. This is a noticeable gap given the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Flag') and resource ('delivery problems'), then enumerates the exact problem types: disapproved or in-review ads, ads with issues, and ad sets stuck in learning phase. This distinguishes it well from sibling read-only tools like get_insights or get_campaign_structure.

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 gives useful context ('Read-only. Pro.') and implies the tool is used to check delivery health, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. The 'Pro' hint is helpful but not a full usage guide.

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