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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains the meaning of key fields like throttle.isThrottled and featureGate.isInTenantAllowlist, and it explicitly documents the 404 case as 'tenant is not enrolled in the insights pilot.' This is valuable transparency, though it does not describe the full response envelope or other possible error conditions.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives an immediate usage directive, the third lists the key return fields, and the fourth documents a critical 404 behavior. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity—one enum parameter and no output schema—the description covers the essential context an agent needs: what the tool returns, key field meanings, and what a 404 indicates. It is nearly complete, though it could also mention the expected shape of the full response or whether the listed fields are always present.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single provider parameter, including an enum and description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so it does not need to compensate. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Get operational health signals for a paid ads provider' and enumerates the specific signals it surfaces: throttle state, feature gate enrollment, stale syncs, and tier. It is specific enough to distinguish from general analytics tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling nevent_paid_ads_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?

The description gives a strong, explicit usage directive: 'Always call this before claiming "no data" to the user.' It also explains what signals the tool surfaces, which helps an agent decide when to consult it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name any alternative tools for comparison.

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