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

readOnlyHint already covers the safety profile, but the description adds substantive context: the definition of 'ready' (connected AND an ad account chosen), that currency determines budget validation and per-currency daily minimums, that connecting happens in the app rather than through this tool, and that connections are account-scoped, not Space-scoped. That last point heads off a real scope misunderstanding.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and actionable guidance, and the enumeration of returned fields earns its place because there is no output schema. It is dense — the currency/minimum and account-scope remarks are packed into single clauses — but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full explanatory burden and does so: it enumerates return fields, defines the readiness semantics that gate trigger_sync, and clarifies the scope of connections. An agent has everything it needs to call it and interpret the result.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4; nothing in the schema needs semantic elaboration. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the ad platforms Growomat delivers to') plus the exact per-platform verdicts returned: connected, ready, ad account id/name/currency/time zone, connection health. This is clearly distinguished from siblings like account_summary or list_spaces, which cover different resources.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Call it before building a campaign') and a concrete consequence ('a platform that is not ready cannot be synced to'), tying it to trigger_sync. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative, which keeps it short of a 5.

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