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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing permission checks and business restrictions. It clarifies that the tool is safe (non-destructive) but requires authorization, which is beyond annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose but contains multiple imperative sentences (4-5 sentences) that could be more concise. While informative, not every sentence is essential for a simple 'get' operation.

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 no output schema, the description covers pre-conditions, required checks, and error handling (blocked access). It provides a complete usage flow but omits return value format or error messages beyond access checks.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description does not explain what 'productId' or 'communityId' represent in the context of Magic Ads. Parameter names are somewhat clear but lack context (e.g., which community does the product belong to?). The description fails to add semantics.

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 'Get Magic Ads status for a managed physical product,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_physical_product' and 'get_magic_ads_minimum_spend' by focusing solely on Magic Ads status for physical products.

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 instructions: check business permissions, note free businesses cannot use, call 'check_business_tool_access' before collecting inputs, show grace-period warnings, and never proceed when blocked. It directly references a sibling tool and specifies when not to use it.

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