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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, non-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 50-entry page size and the candidate-selection pattern, which is real context, but says nothing about cursor paging behavior or what the policy check actually gates.

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?

Extremely short and action-first: the verb and resource lead, the follow-up tool comes second. Nothing is padded, though 'Check setup_get_status policy' is terse to the point of being cryptic.

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, for a 5-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and pagination, the definition leaves key invocation details (cursor usage, media_type semantics, policy precondition mechanics) unstated.

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 5 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It only conveys the implicit 50-item limit; media_type, ad_account_id, cursor, and the connection_context pattern are left entirely undocumented.

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 clear verb+resource: list account media index entries, capped at 50. It also signals scope by naming account_media_get_batch as the follow-up, so an agent can place it in the media workflow. 'Index entries' is slightly jargon-y and it doesn't fully differentiate from account_media_get.

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 an explicit two-step workflow — list to select candidates, then call account_media_get_batch — and points at setup_get_status as a policy precondition. That is clear usage context, though it phrases the policy check vaguely with no when/when-not conditions.

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