get_login_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the access token is optional and will use a cached token if not provided, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the 'clickable resource link' actually contains (e.g., URL format, expiration).

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 well-structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, provides critical usage notes, then lists parameters and returns in a clear format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and only one parameter with good description coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and return type. However, it could benefit from more behavioral details like authentication flow or link characteristics.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for the single parameter: 'access_token: Meta API access token (optional - will use cached token if not provided).' This explains the parameter's purpose, type, and optional behavior beyond the schema's basic title. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates for the single parameter.

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 purpose: 'Get a clickable login link for Meta Ads authentication.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('login link'), and the target system ('Meta Ads authentication'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are mostly about ad management rather than authentication.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'This method should only be used if you're using your own Facebook app. If using Pipeboard authentication (recommended), set the PIPEBOARD_API_TOKEN environment variable instead.' It clearly states when to use this tool (with own Facebook app) and when not to (with Pipeboard authentication), including an alternative approach.

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