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

The description frames the tool as a read ('Read ... performance', 'Does not create ads or change budgets'), but annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, directly contradicting that framing. Though the text adds useful traits (currency preservation, reporting periods, freshness, missing metrics), the safety-signal conflict is a serious inconsistency.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then behavioral guarantees. No filler or repetition; every clause carries information.

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. However, with 7 undocumented parameters and an annotation conflict, the definition is only partially sufficient for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the semantic load. It hints at provider (Meta/Pinterest), date range ('completed dates'), and the fresh flag ('freshness'), but brandId, accountId, and connectionId are entirely unexplained, leaving most parameters ambiguous.

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+resource ('Read ... advertising performance') and pins the providers (Meta, Pinterest) and scope (completed dates). It is largely distinguishable from ad siblings like get_ad_breakdown, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Gives negative guidance ('Does not create ads or change budgets') and an implicit timing constraint ('completed dates'), which helps set expectations. It does not say when to choose this over get_ad_breakdown, get_channel_report, or get_analytics, so alternatives remain unaddressed.

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