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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful scoping detail that results are for a period, but says nothing about pagination, whether archived campaigns are excluded by default, or auth requirements.

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 dense sentence with no wasted clauses, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it reads as a payload summary rather than an instruction, so the actionable content is not front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields including currency, which is above baseline. However, it omits the default period behavior and the include_archived semantics, so an agent still lacks enough to call the tool confidently across both parameters.

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 only 50%: period has an enum with a documented default, but include_archived has no description in the schema and the description never mentions it. The description does not compensate for that gap, leaving one parameter semantically opaque.

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 names the resource (the partner's Meta ad campaigns) and enumerates the metrics returned, so an agent can identify the payload. It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish the tool from siblings like get_insights or get_ads_status, which cover overlapping ground.

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 statement of when to use this tool instead of get_insights, get_ads_status, or list_orders, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the field list alone.

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