get_login_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses caching behavior (optional access_token, will use cached token) and the return type, but does not explicitly state whether generating the link has side effects (e.g., creates a session, expires) or requires specific permissions. This is a moderate gap.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a note, and clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value and no space is wasted.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param), and the description provides usage context, parameter details, and return value. It could mention prerequisites like having a custom Facebook app, but the 'NOTE' section partially covers this. Overall, it is complete for its complexity.

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 only provides the parameter name and type, while the description adds meaningful semantics: 'Meta API access token (optional - will use cached token if not provided).' This explains the optionality and fallback behavior, compensating for the schema's minimal 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a clickable login link for Meta Ads authentication.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from the sibling ad-management tools.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: the method should only be used when using your own Facebook app, and the recommended Pipeboard authentication path is described with a concrete alternative (setting PIPEBOARD_API_TOKEN). This is a model of when/when-not guidance.

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