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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the context of being an authentication step but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like side effects or required approvals beyond what annotations provide.

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 reasonably concise with front-loaded main action. It includes necessary prerequisite instructions without excessive verbosity, though it could be slightly tighter.

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?

Covers the main action and prerequisites, but it does not describe the return value (output), which is important since there is no output schema. The user is left to infer what the access token is for. Still sufficient for a simple authentication tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should explain the parameters. It mentions 'Facebook OAuth code' and 'community tracking setup' but does not explicitly clarify the meaning of each parameter (code, communityId, redirectUri). The description adds minimal value over the schema itself.

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?

Clearly states it exchanges a Facebook OAuth code for an access token for community tracking setup. However, it does not clearly distinguish from the sibling 'authenticate_business_facebook_tracking' except by stating they are interchangeable, which may confuse but still conveys the core purpose.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: before offering, check business permissions, call check_business_tool_access, show grace-period warning and resubscribe link, and never proceed when access is blocked. Also notes that FREE businesses cannot use this tool.

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