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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact — 'Tokens are never returned' — plus a hint of the returned payload shape (health state, mirrored ad accounts with balances and spend), but says nothing about how many accounts, freshness of health data, or pagination 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 short sentences with zero filler, and the payload scope is front-loaded ahead of the token-visibility caveat. The opening fragment is compact but costs a little comprehension since it lacks a verb.

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 must convey return content, and it does at a high level (accounts, health, mirrored ad accounts, balances, spend). It omits pagination envelope details and result ordering, which matters for a paginated list endpoint that a caller will need to page through.

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% with all three params (page, search, per_page) documented including defaults and bounds, so the schema carries this dimension. The description adds nothing about filtering by name or pagination semantics, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names the resource and its payload ('Meta (Facebook) accounts with health state and mirrored ad accounts'), but it is a noun phrase with no verb — the agent must infer 'list' from the name/title. It also doesn't distinguish this from close siblings like list_meta_agencies, list_meta_links, or get_meta_overlay.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool among the ~100 siblings. An agent has to guess whether this is the right entry point for Meta account data versus report_meta_cabinet_health or list_meta_links.

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