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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds beyond them by naming the returned fields and the downstream use of the returned id. This gives the agent useful context for what the call produces and how it connects to list_ad_campaigns and get_ads_performance.

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 compact and front-loads the core behavior and return fields. The routing line somewhat repeats the earlier 'Use first' guidance, but the description remains tight and easy to scan.

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 list tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, this description is complete: it states what is listed, what fields are returned, when to use it, and how the result feeds downstream tools. An agent has enough context to call it correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter, companyId, and the schema already describes it thoroughly as a FreedomOS company id with a membership requirement. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond implicitly aligning the company scope, so the 100% schema coverage carries the burden.

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 a specific verb and resource: listing Meta (Facebook/Instagram) ad accounts for the company's connection. It also names the returned fields and explicitly positions this as the entry point, distinguishing it from related siblings like list_x_ad_accounts and downstream tools.

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 explicitly says to use this first when the user asks about FB/IG ads, and the routing line reinforces this entry-point behavior. It does not explicitly mention when to use alternative tools like list_x_ad_accounts for X ads, but the Meta scoping implies the exclusion.

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