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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'It runs nothing and changes nothing,' which is consistent and reassuring. It also discloses the scope of content covered per section, though it says nothing about response format or fallback behavior when a path doesn't resolve.

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?

Front-loads the core definition, then sections, then usage examples – a logical order with no filler. The section enumeration is dense but each item conveys real scope an agent would otherwise have to probe for.

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 three-parameter read-only help tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, this is complete: it tells the agent what content exists, how to reach it, and how to search. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by showing concrete path and q string formats and by noting that path strings are composed of section/platform/resource (e.g. 'manage google campaigns create'), which helps the agent construct valid input. It does not mention the q-over-path precedence, but that is already documented in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read-only reference documentation for the other AdKit tools') and enumerates the four content sections, so an agent can distinguish it immediately from the actionable siblings like adkit_manage or adkit_studio.

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?

Gives explicit invocation patterns: open a section with path (with a concrete example) or search with q (with a concrete example), and adds the directive 'Search here before telling the user a capability is unavailable.' The when-to-use versus siblings is unambiguous.

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