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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description 'Get' matches. The description adds behavioral context like checking business permissions and free business restrictions, but does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects such as rate limits or response format. It adds some value beyond annotations.

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 relatively concise, using three sentences to convey purpose, prerequisites, and warnings. However, it could be more front-loaded by placing the primary purpose first before the usage conditions.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should provide more details about the return value (the upload status) and parameter usage. It only covers permissions and restrictions, leaving important operational context missing.

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?

The input schema has two required parameters (videoId, communityId) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what these parameters represent or their expected values, so it adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 states it retrieves Meta video upload status for a Magic Audience video. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_magic_audience_ad' or 'get_magic_audience_campaign' beyond the verb and resource.

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 description explicitly tells when to use this tool: after checking business permissions and calling check_business_tool_access. It also states when not to use: free businesses cannot use it. It provides clear context and excludes alternatives, making it highly actionable.

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