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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: navigation/guidance-only output, no execution side effects, and that it surfaces reporting date limits and range-splitting guidance. This affects how an agent should consume the result, going beyond the 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose then boundaries then return content, with no filler. The opening sentence is slightly dense ('for diagnosis, advertising draft collection, and individual advertising operations'), but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only, one-optional-param discovery tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this is close to complete: purpose, boundaries, and key return content are all stated. The only minor gap is no guidance on whether the query filter is recommended for first-time discovery versus omitted for a full listing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'query' parameter is fully documented in the schema with example search texts. The description adds no syntax, format, or required/optional detail beyond that, so this is the baseline case where the schema carries the burden.

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+resource ('Lists supported business workflows and their already-exposed MCP tools') and scopes it to diagnosis, advertising draft collection, and individual ad operations. It sharply distinguishes itself from the many prepare_*/apply_*/query_* siblings by declaring it returns navigation and input guidance only.

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 negative framing ('does not prepare plans, execute queries, or apply advertising changes') tells the agent when not to use it and routes mutation work to the prepare/apply siblings. It does not explicitly say 'call this first' or name a specific alternative to use instead, so usage is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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