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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds navigational behavior: progressive drill-down, q-based keyword search across the full catalog, and cross-path fallback semantics. It does not contradict the annotations, though it could describe the return/response format more explicitly.

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 well-organized sentences carry the full contract: the first establishes the catalog categories, the second gives concrete invocation patterns and search behavior. It is dense but front-loaded and free of filler.

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 help tool with no required parameters and rich annotations, the description covers root invocation, drill-down paths, keyword search, and precedence semantics, with examples. The lack of an output schema is not a gap because the return is clearly help content.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value with worked examples for path and q and clarifies that q searches the entire command catalog. This extends the schema documentation meaningfully without redundancy.

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?

Clearly identifies this as the AdKit help/discovery tool with a specific verb ('discover') and resource (the AdKit MCP contract). The top-level path categories distinguish it from sibling operation tools and make its scope concrete with examples.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: start with adkit_help() for the root overview, drill down via path, or use q for keyword search. The directive to search before telling a user a capability is unavailable, plus the note that a capability may exist under another path, is strong usage guidance.

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