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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description meaningfully adds freshness semantics ('app bindings are cached') and an explicit scope limitation ('no BM links'), which an agent needs to know before relying on the result. It still leaves unanswered what 'live' means relative to the cache and whether the account must be pre-bound.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the caching/BM caveats trailing correctly. The 'BM topology: assets_lookup_business_links' fragment is terse to the point of being cryptic but does not waste much space.

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 the description needn't enumerate returned fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing — how to obtain a valid ad_account_id and what 'detail' encompasses — is modest for a one-parameter read tool.

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 0% for the single ad_account_id parameter, so the description must carry the load; it does so partially by implying the account must be one 'authorized in your workspace', which constrains valid values. It gives no format, source, or discovery guidance (e.g. from assets_list_ad_accounts).

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 ('Read live Meta details for one ad account'), scoped to accounts authorized in the workspace. It is reasonably distinguishable from assets_list_ad_accounts/assets_refresh_ad_account, though the second sentence's 'app bindings are cached, no BM links' is a caveat rather than purpose and adds a slightly cryptic flavor.

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 by 'one ad account authorized in your workspace' and the pointer to assets_lookup_business_links for BM topology gives a partial routing hint. However there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of assets_refresh_ad_account, assets_list_ad_accounts, or account_get_profile, nor any exclusion.

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