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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, and the description adds what data is returned. However, 'Requires projectId' is slightly overstated because the schema notes the parameter auto-resolves for single-project users, and no edge-case behavior is disclosed. No contradiction with 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?

One sentence that front-loads the return contents and immediately states the dependency. No filler or repetition.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns and the input dependency. It lacks an explicit call scenario or output-shape details, but given a single parameter and read-only safe operation, it is nearly 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no new parameter meaning; it simply repeats that projectId is required and sourced from adkit_projects, which the schema already documents.

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 ('Return') and a precise resource ('project context, connected platforms, assigned ad accounts, and Studio setup'), which clearly identifies the tool as a status/read-only lookup and distinguishes it from sibling tools like adkit_projects or adkit_setup.

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?

It explicitly states the prerequisite: projectId must come from adkit_projects. This tells the agent which prior tool to call. It does not name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it misses the highest bar, but the usage context is clear enough.

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