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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the set of returned metrics, which is largely duplicated by the output schema; it says nothing about account scoping, data freshness, or empty-result 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?

Two compact sentences: the field list is front-loaded and the trigger phrases follow. The '[DEMO SINTÉTICA]' prefix and quoted example queries add bulk but no real waste for an agent scanning for intent.

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 an output schema, full annotation coverage, and a single well-documented parameter, the description carries only the framing burden and meets it. The only gap is not distinguishing itself from the aggregation sibling get_meta_ads_summary.

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% and the single date_range parameter is fully documented in the schema, including accepted formats and a 30-day default. The description never mentions date_range, so it adds nothing beyond the schema; baseline 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 resource and granularity: 'Desglose de Meta Ads campaña por campaña' plus the exact fields returned (nombre, objetivo, estado, gasto, alcance, clics). This distinguishes it implicitly from get_meta_ads_summary by promising a per-campaign breakdown, though it never names that sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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 'Sirve para' clause supplies concrete trigger phrasings ('campañas de Meta Ads', 'qué objetivos tenemos en Facebook', 'performance por campaña'), which gives implied usage context. However, it never states when NOT to use it or that get_meta_ads_summary is the alternative for aggregate totals, so the agent must infer the routing.

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