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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful context about the record contents (status, result, errors), but does not describe ordering, freshness, pagination behavior, or what the launch records represent.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is efficient, though the fragmentary style and lack of an explicit verb make it slightly less clear than it could be.

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?

The tool has five optional filter parameters and no output schema, so the description should ideally clarify filtering and return behavior. It mentions the record fields returned, which helps, but says nothing about pagination, sorting, or how the filters map to results.

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 80%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning and does not compensate for the undocumented status filter, leaving baseline-level value only.

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 clearly identifies the resource as Meta campaign launch history and lists the included fields (status, result, errors). It is specific enough to distinguish the resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate this list from sibling tools such as list_meta_links or report_meta_ads.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The phrase 'launch history' implies a browsing use case, but an agent gets no help choosing between this and related Meta listing or reporting tools.

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