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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by noting that it is browser-based and that the result is dashboard URLs the user can open.

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 carry all the essential information: what the tool does, the key dependency, and what it returns. No filler or redundant restatement of the title or schema is present.

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 tool with only three parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety traits, the description is largely complete. It explains the return value and the main prerequisite, though it slightly overstates projectId as unconditionally required when the schema allows auto-resolution for single-project users.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and their enum values. The description only repeats the projectId dependency from adkit_projects without adding new parameter-level meaning, keeping this at the baseline score.

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 clearly states the tool launches browser-based AdKit setup flows, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like adkit_manage, but the setup flow focus and return of dashboard URLs are distinctive enough for an agent to understand its purpose.

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 explicitly says it requires projectId from adkit_projects, giving an agent a clear prerequisite and pointing to the correct sibling tool for obtaining that ID. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but for a focused setup tool this is adequate guidance.

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