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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the writing nature is implied. The description adds the important consent and onboarding context, but it does not disclose what happens on repeated calls or what the tool returns, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two short sentences with the key constraint front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 lightweight one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and consent requirements. Minor missing context includes duplicate-call behavior and expected return value, but these are low-risk for an onboarding check-in.

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 agentId parameter is fully documented by the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable since the schema already carries the 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?

States a specific action (records check-in), a specific resource (successful AdKit usage after setup), and a strict scope (onboarding only). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like adkit_setup or adkit_status.

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?

Provides clear usage context: onboarding, setup and connection verification, and only at the user's explicit request. It also excludes non-onboarding use via 'Onboarding only' and 'solely,' though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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