get_login_link

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the access_token is optional and that a cached token will be used if omitted, which is a meaningful behavioral detail beyond what annotations would provide. For a simple auth-link tool, this is sufficient, though it doesn't explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior.

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 succinct: a one-sentence purpose, a short note with usage guidance, and a compact Args block. It avoids redundancies, and the most important information is 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter behavior, and return type. An output schema exists, so detailed return fields are not required. Everything an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly is present.

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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates with an Args section explaining the access_token parameter's purpose ('Meta API access token') and its optionality ('will use cached token if not provided'). This adds clear value beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('clickable login link for Meta Ads authentication'). It is distinct from all sibling tools focused on pages, campaigns, and ads. The purpose is immediately obvious.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use this tool (when using your own Facebook app) and when not to use it (when using Pipeboard authentication, instead set the PIPEBOARD_API_TOKEN). It also names the alternative approach, making the guidance highly actionable.

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