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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the setup policy check but omits pagination behavior and what the index entries contain, which would matter for a list operation.

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 short and front-loads the listing action and follow-up workflow. The final policy-check clause is terse but still useful and does not add unnecessary bulk.

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 presence of an output schema and strong annotations reduces the burden, but with 0% schema description coverage the description should clarify the required account/media parameters and cursor pagination. It gives the broad workflow but not enough parameter guidance for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It only implies the 50-entry limit and says nothing about ad_account_id, media_type, or cursor usage.

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 verb and resource: 'List ... account media index entries'. It also points to the batch follow-up, though it does not distinguish from the single-item account_media_get sibling.

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 a clear workflow: select candidates here, then use account_media_get_batch. It also names a prerequisite to check via setup_get_status policy, but does not explain when to use account_media_get instead.

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