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

Annotations already disclose that the operation is mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it refreshes the account and Page cache, but does not explain what this refresh entails (e.g., cache invalidation, data re-fetch, permissions needed, rate limits). It provides some context beyond the annotations but not substantially more.

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 sentence of seven words, front-loaded with the verb and target. It avoids redundancy and reads well, though it may be overly terse given the ambiguity in the parameter semantics. Still, it earns its place with no fluff.

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?

With only two parameters and an output schema present, the description still leaves significant gaps: it doesn't clarify what 'connection Page cache' means, whether page_id is always needed, or when to prefer this over assets_refresh_all. An agent would need to infer or look at siblings to use the tool confidently.

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 parameter meaning. It hints that 'account' maps to ad_account_id and 'connection Page' maps to page_id, but it never explicitly names either parameter or explains the role and optionality of page_id. This is minimal value for an agent trying to fill in the required and optional arguments.

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 states the verb ('refresh') and the specific resource ('one account and its connection Page cache'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like assets_refresh_all by the qualifier 'one account.' Although the phrase 'connection Page cache' is slightly jargon-like, the core action and target are unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the obvious alternative assets_refresh_all, nor any context about prerequisites, whether page_id is required for certain scenarios, or when a single-account refresh is appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and siblings.

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