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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination/limit behavior, no date-range defaults, no note that all 17 parameters are optional, and no indication of what 'this account' resolves to.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently written, though the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

The output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 17-parameter, zero-required tool the description is far too thin. No filtering semantics, no date/pagination behavior, and no routing guidance are provided, leaving the agent under-equipped 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 17 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails it. Terms like days, date_from/date_to, limit, sort_by, activity_only, campaign_name, ad_account and range_preset appear nowhere in the description, leaving their meaning and interactions entirely opaque.

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 and granularity: per-campaign metrics for Meta Ads on the current account. That distinguishes it from account-level siblings like meta_ads_get_summary and from meta_ads_get_fatigue, though it never explicitly contrasts them. It is clear but minimally elaborated.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite several close siblings (meta_ads_get_summary, meta_ads_get_fatigue, google_ads_get_campaigns). An agent must infer from the name alone which of these to call for campaign-level data.

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