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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the list is cached, that results are a 'compact bounded page', and explains pagination semantics including the meaning of 'complete' and cursor invalidation ('A rejected or old cursor requires restarting page one'). It also clarifies that 'complete' does not indicate upstream sync or creation permissions. These are important behavioral nuances not inferable from the schema.

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 efficiently structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then the value-add (augmentation), then the pagination contract, then parameter details, and ends with an example. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is redundant. It is detailed yet concise.

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?

For a list tool with no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: resource, scope, caching, pagination, cursor handling, search, limit bounds, and the meaning of 'complete'. It also references a mirror tool for cross-checking. An agent has enough to call it correctly and handle pagination without ambiguity.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explicitly explains all three parameters: limit (default 20, max 50), cursor (from previous response), and search (case-insensitive native id/name lookup). It adds type and constraints beyond the raw schema, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List cached TikTok Business Centers (Meta wire name: businesses) for the authenticated tenant, across every connection.' It clearly states the scope and the resource type, and distinguishes it from siblings by naming the mirror tool and the augmentation (advertiser_count, pixel_count). This is unambiguous and immediately usable.

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?

It provides clear context: this lists business centers with per-BC inventory counts so users avoid extra calls, and it explains the pagination workflow ('Keep the same tool, filters and limit while following next_cursor serially until complete=true'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative list tools (e.g., when to choose this over assets_list_ad_accounts), though the resource type itself differentiates. The guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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