zuckerbot_audit_account

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the operation is read-only, available on every tier, saves a shareable report only when the API key resolves to one saved business, and that the opportunity score is only produced when all inputs return. That is much more than a minimal safety disclosure.

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?

Every part of the description earns its place: scope, expected deliverables, the score range, the conditional report side effect, the tier availability, and usage timing. It is front-loaded with the concrete audit purpose and the parenthetical 'when all inputs return' adds useful precision without bulk.

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 available, the description does enough by naming the major return streams: spend flags, creative analysis, the score, and action items. It also covers the report side effect and tells the agent when this tool should be called first. An agent can confidently decide whether to invoke it and what to expect back.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented by the schema. The description adds little beyond the schema: it only lightly reinforces that company_name defaults to the connected business name and that meta_ad_account_id defaults to the connected account. That matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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: 'Run a full audit of the connected Meta ad account', then enumerates distinct deliverables such as spend flagged against objective, creative fatigue, a 0-100 opportunity score, and prioritized action items. It is clearly distinguished from sibling analytics/insights tools like get_account_insights and get_performance because it frames itself as a full-account audit.

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 gives an explicit usage cue: 'the recommended FIRST call for any new account or when a user asks how are my ads doing?'. This is clear context, but it does not name alternative tools or say when the user should instead call a more targeted sibling like get_performance or get_account_insights, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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