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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the card surfaces a disable reason and financial limits (spend, limit, balance), which is real context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about latency, caching, or what happens when the account param is omitted.

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?

A single compact clause with zero filler, and the most important signal (account health/status) is front-loaded. It reads as a fragment rather than a sentence, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so by listing the concrete fields returned. For a read-only, zero-required-parameter status lookup that is essentially complete; only the relationship to account-level budget siblings is left unexplained.

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 folder, account, and language are already fully documented in the schema, including the optional-when-single-account note and the Arabic-dialect enum guidance. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 a specific resource (the Meta ad account) and enumerates exactly what is retrieved: status, disable reason, spend, limit, balance, currency, time zone, business. That is enough for an agent to tell it apart from siblings like meta_performance or budget_status, though it is a verbless noun fragment rather than an explicit 'returns/get' statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives such as list_accounts, meta_performance, or budget_status, and no stated preconditions (e.g. account must be enabled, or how it differs from budget_status). The agent must infer usage from the field list alone.

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