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 only the vague 'for this account' scoping hint and says nothing about pagination, aggregation window, or how the many filter parameters interact with the returned totals.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, so it is not bloated. But brevity here comes at the cost of substance, given the tool exposes 17 optional parameters that go unmentioned.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a read-only summary tool with 17 undocumented filter parameters and no usage guidance, however, the description leaves far too much for the agent to infer before it can call the tool 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?

There are 17 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description documents none of them. Nothing explains how url, site_url, ad_account, page_id, ig_user_id, range_preset, days, or date_from/date_to relate to one another, leaving every filter's meaning and precedence 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 the resource (Meta Ads) and the shape of the output ('rolled-up totals for this account'), which is more specific than a restatement of the title. However, it gives no signal distinguishing it from close siblings such as meta_ads_get_campaigns or google_ads_get_summary, so an agent must guess which aggregate tool to pick.

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, no mention of alternatives, and no preconditions. With siblings like meta_ads_get_campaigns and meta_ads_get_fatigue in the same namespace, the agent gets no routing help at all.

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