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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds meaningful behavioral value by specifying the return shape (connected, accountId, accountName, lastSyncAt) and the recommended call ordering, which goes beyond the schema.

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 purpose, the second gives usage guidance, and the third lists the return fields. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage context, and return fields. Minor gaps exist, such as not explaining behavior when connected=false or differentiating from nevent_paid_ads_health, but overall it is sufficient.

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 schema_description_coverage is 100% because the provider parameter is fully described with an enum and explanation. The description merely repeats 'meta, google, or tiktok' without adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb 'Check' and the resource: whether a paid ads provider account is connected to the tenant and the last sync time. It is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit guidance: 'Call this first before any ads queries to confirm the integration is active.' This is a clear context for use, though it does not discuss alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it misses the top score.

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