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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the word "Queue," which usefully signals an asynchronous/deferred operation rather than an immediate one, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what the refresh actually mutates.

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?

A single tight sentence with the operation and scope front-loaded; there is no filler and nothing to trim.

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 needn't be described, and annotations cover safety. However, for a mutating routing-refresh tool with 0% parameter coverage, the description omits the required connection_context token and any preconditions, leaving real gaps 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 coverage is 0% for two parameters. "For one FB user" loosely maps to fb_user_label, but connection_context (a tightly-patterned mctx_v1 token) is never explained in the description, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 ("Queue") plus resource ("ad-account routing refresh") and scope ("for one FB user"), which separates it from generic siblings like assets_refresh_ad_account or assets_refresh_all. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the verb+resource+scope is concrete enough to identify the operation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when a different refresh tool (e.g. assets_refresh_ad_account) is preferable. The agent is left to infer the context from the name alone.

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