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

Description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals that free businesses are blocked, requires a pre-check tool call, and mandates not proceeding when access is blocked. Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, so the description enriches safety understanding.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then guidelines. It is concise and direct, though the second sentence is somewhat long. Overall efficient with no fluff.

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?

Description covers prerequisites and usage conditions well, but lacks output format information (no output schema) and parameter explanations. Given the tool's complexity (3 required parameters) and missing param descriptions, completeness is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 3 required parameters (code, communityId, redirectUri) with 0% schema description coverage. The description gives no explanation of what these parameters mean, their source, or format. This is a critical gap for an AI agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

Description clearly states it lists Meta pages available for connecting to Magic Audience. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_magic_audience_campaigns or list_magic_audience_products, but the unique resource 'Meta pages' makes it distinctive.

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?

Description provides explicit, actionable guidance: check business permissions, note that free businesses cannot use it, call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs, and handle grace-period warnings. It clearly instructs when and how to use the tool, including prerequisites.

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