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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the data source, that it is a rollup rather than live inventory, and explicitly warns that an empty result does not imply no campaigns exist. This is exceptional transparency beyond what annotations would typically provide.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, data source, limitations, alternatives, required parameter, and an example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then systematically addresses usage guidance, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (many siblings, no annotations, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage, alternatives, parameter semantics, and limitations. The only minor gap is not describing the output format (e.g., list of campaign objects with spend), but this is not critical for selecting the tool correctly.

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. It thoroughly explains product_id (stable ID from products_list, shared with Meta store, no server switch needed) and provides a usage example. limit is self-evident as a top-N count with a default of 10, so while not explicitly detailed, the description adds sufficient meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 explicitly states the tool returns top-N TikTok campaigns by spend for a single product card, and immediately clarifies it is a rollup from tiktok_insights_daily, not a live inventory. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like insights_query_overview and overview_get_live_configs.

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?

The description provides explicit routing: it names insights_query_overview and insights_query_consistent as alternatives for campaign names, status, and spend, and overview_get_live_configs for current configuration. It also states what this tool does NOT do (empty report does not prove all campaigns paused), leaving no ambiguity about when to choose it.

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