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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real signal: it defines the partial/degraded status vocabulary, states that only status/name metadata is returned, and clarifies that Pages are products rather than extra billable accounts, which prevents a likely misinterpretation of the results.

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?

Four compact clauses, front-loaded with the core action; each sentence conveys substantive information (status semantics, remediation hint, billing clarification, return scope). Slightly dense phrasing but no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the returned metadata is limited to status/name and by explaining the status vocabulary. A reader still has to guess the exact response shape, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single account_id parameter is already documented as an owned unipile_account_id, explicitly not a person or Page ID, and conditionally required. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect current Facebook product statuses, including each activated Page.' An agent understands what is returned. It stops short of differentiating this from the near-identical sibling account_connection_status, which is the main ambiguity left.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'partial/degraded means some products work and others need attention; reconnect the SAME account to review Page activation' guidance, which tells the agent this is a diagnostic/remediation step. However, it never says when to choose this over account_connection_status or account_list_attention, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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