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 useful context about which change types are surfaced, but says nothing about retention window, whether deletions are included, ordering, or whether the result is capped — the 'recent' framing is vague against a default LAST_30_DAYS range in the schema.

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 tightly packed sentence with zero filler, and the subject ('recent changes on the ad account') is front-loaded. It is arguably over-compressed for an eight-parameter tool, but nothing 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?

Incorrect score placeholder replaced below.

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 88%, so limits, defaults and enums (limit, detail, date_range, account) are already well documented in the schema. The description contributes no parameter guidance of its own, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: change history on the Meta ad account, with an explicit attribute list ('who changed what and when') and object coverage ('budgets, statuses, targeting, creatives'). An agent can distinguish it from read tools like meta_ads or meta_insights_query, but the description never names the closest sibling, meta_explain_change, which also deals with changes.

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?

'Recent changes' implies an audit/review use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no when-not guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as meta_explain_change for understanding why a change happened or google_ads_change_history for the other platform. Usage must be inferred from the word 'recent'.

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