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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: app bindings are cached (data-freshness/staleness signal) and BM links are deliberately excluded from the result. That is useful disclosure not present in structured fields.

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 tightly packed sentences with the core action and the two key qualifiers (cached, no BM links) front-loaded before the topology pointer. The trailing 'BM topology: assets_lookup_business_links' is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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 no explanation, and the annotations cover safety for this read-only tool. The gap is parameter-level: with 0% schema coverage the agent gets no guidance on connection_context or the expected id form, leaving the definition only minimally adequate.

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 two parameters, and the description explains neither ad_account_id nor connection_context (which carries a regex constraint the agent cannot interpret from prose). 'Authorized in your workspace' loosely gestures at connection_context but adds no usable semantics, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Read live Meta details for one ad account'), and adds scope ('authorized in your workspace'), which separates it from bulk listings like assets_list_ad_accounts. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with near-neighbors like account_get_profile or accounts_find_owner, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'no BM links' qualifier plus 'BM topology: assets_lookup_business_links' effectively routes the agent elsewhere for business-manager topology. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing against the sibling reads (account_get_profile, accounts_find_owner), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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