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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the 365-day Ads consent expiration, that Ads stop working until reconnection, and the recommended action for ads.warning. It does not cover rate limits or auth requirements, keeping it from a 5.

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 the core purpose and then provides necessary operational details in a compact, three-sentence format. The specific date '30/7/2026' is slightly granular but relevant to the expiration logic, so overall structure is efficient.

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 a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key returned fields (ads.ads_status, ads.expires_at, ads.days_left, ads.warning) and the recommended user action. It does not fully enumerate all possible 'status/details' beyond the Ads connection, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 there is only one optional parameter. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status/details of the selected Amazon seller account (outpost)'), and specifies the included Ads connection details. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_account_health, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions or exclusions. It does provide a conditional action for when a warning is present, but that is output handling, not tool selection guidance.

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