run_setup_check

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

The description clearly states the tool is read-only and does not modify any configuration or Meta settings. This is critical transparency for a diagnostic tool. Without annotations, the description fully bears the burden, and it does so well by also describing the output structure (pass/warn/fail with instructions). No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose, then provide details on validated items and behavioral traits. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains what is validated and the nature of the output (structured results with pass/warn/fail and fix instructions). However, it could be slightly more specific about the output format (e.g., JSON structure), but this is not essential for selection.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameters to document. According to guidelines, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it does not. The schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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's purpose: to check MCP setup readiness. It enumerates the specific areas validated (token, permissions, account access, pages, Instagram identity, pixels, local config) and describes the output format (pass/warn/fail with fix instructions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_token_status or diagnose_pixel_on_site which focus on narrower aspects.

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 implies usage when a comprehensive readiness check is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. For example, if only token status is needed, one might prefer check_token_status. No exclusions or guidance on prerequisites are provided.

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