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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it searches only existing local data and does not resolve vanity URLs through paid providers, setting clear expectations about data scope.

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 compact sentences with no wasted text. The core search behavior is front-loaded, followed immediately by an important scope limitation.

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 simple one-parameter read-only search with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is searched, accepted input forms, and a key limitation. It does not describe result shape, ordering, or pagination behavior, which is a minor but real gap.

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?

The schema has one required parameter with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that the query can target a name, a Meta page ID, or a stored Facebook URL, giving the agent meaningful input semantics beyond the bare string 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Search your tracked advertisers' by name, Meta page ID, or stored Facebook URL. This is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative such as search_advertisers or list_tracked_brands.

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?

Usage is implied by 'tracked advertisers' and the note that it searches existing local data only. The description also warns that it does not resolve vanity URLs through paid providers, which is a useful boundary, but it does not state when to use this tool versus siblings like search_advertisers or list_tracked_brands.

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