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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. Beyond that, the description usefully discloses the audit dimensions and the 7-day event window, though it does not describe output shape or limitations such as missing permissions or unavailable pixel data.

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 definition is two tight sentences with no waste. The audit contents are front-loaded, followed by a practical use case, making it easy to scan and route.

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 read-only audit tool with no output schema, the description does a good job naming the sections and checks the agent should expect. It could go further by clarifying the return format or edge-case behavior, but it is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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 four parameters are already documented, including detail, folder, account, and language. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Check tracking,' and enumerates the exact Meta resources and signals audited: pixels/datasets, last fired time, browser vs server event receipt, and campaigns optimizing for missing events. The scope is clearly Meta-specific, so an agent can distinguish it from Google Ads, TikTok, and GA4 tracking-audit siblings.

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 gives a clear usage trigger: questions like 'why no purchases/leads.' That is helpful context, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools such as ga4_tracking_check or gtm_audit.

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