advertising-protocols

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds the return fields but does not disclose additional traits like error handling, authorization, or rate limits.

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 a single sentence with no fluff. It fronts the action and resource, then lists the return fields concisely.

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 simple one-parameter tool with good annotations, the description covers what it does and what it returns. It could mention behavior on invalid slugs, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 defines 'slug' with examples 'openrtb-2' and 'adcp'. The description adds more examples ('aamp', 'ucp') and contextualizes the parameter, providing value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch details') and resource ('advertising protocol by its slug'), and distinguishes from siblings like search_protocols (which searches) and list_mcp_servers (which lists servers).

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 implies usage when you need details of a specific protocol, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search_protocols for broader queries.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the directory scope but does not disclose pagination behavior or return format beyond the limit parameter in 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the main action and optional filters. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity (list with filtering) and no output schema, the description covers essential context: the directory and filter options. It is nearly complete for a read-only list operation, though mentioning the return format would be ideal.

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 50% (2 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds examples for the protocol parameter (e.g., 'adcp') and mentions filtering options, which adds value. However, it does not compensate fully for the undocumented parameter (limit missing description) nor provide syntax details.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'MCP servers in the AdvertisingProtocols directory'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_protocol (single protocol) and search_protocols (protocols), which are 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?

The description states the tool lists servers in a specific directory with optional filters, which implies usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety and behavior. The description adds that results are 'plain-English definitions' and gives examples of terms, which provides useful but not critical behavioral context. No contradiction.

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?

Single sentence, 18 words, directly states purpose and examples. No wasted text. Front-loaded with action and resource.

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 simple search tool with annotations, the description adequately covers what it does and returns. However, it omits mention of pagination or the limit parameter's role, which could be clarified for completeness. Overall sufficient given low complexity.

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 50%: query has a description, but limit does not. The tool description does not mention parameters or add meaning beyond the schema. For a 2-parameter tool, the description should clarify the limit parameter's effect or provide examples.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'search', the resource 'AdvertisingProtocols glossary', its scope (130+ ad tech terms with examples like DSP, SSP, RTB), and the output format (plain-English definitions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_protocols by specifying the glossary context.

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 implies when to use (searching ad tech glossary terms) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Sibling tools like get_protocol or list_mcp_servers are not contrasted, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

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

Annotations confirm read-only and idempotent behavior. Description adds that the tool matches against multiple fields (title, description, tags, category) and scopes to 80+ standards, providing useful behavioral context 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?

Single, well-structured sentence with immediate action verb 'search', scope 'catalog of 80+ ad tech standards', and matching fields. No redundant information.

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 simple keyword search tool with two parameters, the description adequately covers what, where, and how. Lacks mention of result format or error scenarios, but annotations and schema fill some gaps. Overall sufficient for basic use.

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 has two parameters with 50% coverage (query has description, limit none). The description mentions 'by keyword' linking to query but adds no parameter-specific details for limit (e.g., meaning, default, range). Does not compensate for missing schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches a catalog of ad tech standards by keyword, matching title, description, tags, and category. It lists concrete examples (OpenRTB, VAST, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_protocol (retrieval of specific protocol) and search_glossary (different catalog).

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 implies when to use (for keyword-based search across the catalog) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Sibling tool names give context but lack direct guidance.

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