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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description usefully adds that the tool is free with no credits. It also explains that the setup covers connection steps, page capabilities and limitations, and ready-made snippets, though it does not go into detailed auth or response-format behavior.

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 compact sentences with no wasted phrasing. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the usage condition and the free/no-credits detail.

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?

For an instructional setup tool with no output schema, the description explains what the agent will get back: connection guidance, page capabilities and limitations, and snippets. The parameters are fully documented in the schema, and annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, which matches the baseline score of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: getting the setup for a shareable page that reads live ads through Proxy. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling ad-analysis tools by focusing on page setup, connection instructions, capabilities, and snippets.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition: use when the user wants to share ad results with a client or team as a page. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools are largely analysis/search tools rather than page-setup tools, so the intended use is still clear.

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