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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the description's burden. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what the tool reports: token status and linked accounts in the workspace.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the secondary reporting behavior stated immediately after. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

For a parameterless health-check tool, the description plus annotations are sufficient for an agent to know what the tool does, what it returns conceptually, and that it is safe to invoke. No output schema is present, but the description adequately conveys the informational nature of the response.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully described at 100% coverage, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool earns a baseline 4 because there is nothing additional the description needs to add.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and clearly names the resource ('ADSAP MCP server connectivity and API key'), while also adding the secondary purpose of reporting Google Ads connection state. This clearly differentiates it from the many sibling tools that retrieve or mutate advertising data.

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 establishes clear context: use this tool to check server connectivity, API key validity, and the caller's Google Ads connection state. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but its singular health-check role is unambiguous given the sibling list.

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