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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by noting both read and write capabilities ('view and adjust'), listing concrete operations like 'enable/disable' and 'update', and explaining authentication token/session acceptance. This goes beyond the schema.

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?

Three dense sentences; front-loaded with purpose. The second and third sentences are long but packed with essential resource/action details. Could be more scannable with bullets, but every piece of information is useful.

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?

Covers authentication, discovery mechanism, all current resources with their sub-actions, and explicitly addresses the session-vs-token nuance. No output schema exists, but the description's guidance on calling with no action to discover what's available is sufficient for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 merely defines resource as 'The resource to act on,' but the description enriches it by listing valid resource values (anchor, video_formats, rewarded) and the exact actions possible for each. It also clarifies the 'action' parameter's role and the utility of calling without an action. This substantially compensates for the schema's minimal descriptions.

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: 'View and adjust ad settings for your site.' It then enumerates specific resources (anchor, video_formats, rewarded) and their associated operations (get/update, get/enable/disable), making it distinct from sibling tools like payments or subscriptions.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: pass resource and action, call with no action to discover available options, and clarifies authentication preferences (prefer Bearer session over asking for sk_ token). It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the specificity of ad settings makes the use case clear.

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