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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that the tool returns campaign fields and is useful before making changes, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default row limits, or whether results are scoped to a single account.

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 two tightly written sentences with no filler. The returned-data summary is front-loaded and the pre-change ID lookup guidance directly follows, so every sentence earns its place.

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 an eight-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what data comes back and one key use case. The schema handles all parameter semantics, though the description could do more to clarify default scope and how period results relate to date parameters.

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 all eight parameters are documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it mentions campaign budget versus ad-set budgets as returned data, but this does not clarify any parameter behavior.

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 identifies the resource (Meta campaigns) and the data returned: objective, status, budgets, bid strategy, and period spend/results. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' and does not directly distinguish this from sibling tools such as meta_ads, meta_adsets, or meta_performance.

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 sentence 'Use to find IDs before changes' gives a concrete use case, implying this is a pre-mutation lookup tool. However, it does not state when to prefer alternatives like meta_performance or meta_ads, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites.

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