Describe the server configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds content scope (API host, default ad account, safety settings) but nothing further about behavior; output details are covered by the output schema, so this is adequate rather than rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element (host, default account, safety settings) carries information about the return payload.

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 zero-argument read-only introspection tool with an output schema, naming the config categories it surfaces is sufficient to call it correctly. Only the relationship to the other diagnostics tools (health_check, audit_lookup) is left unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline 4 applies; nothing is misleading or missing.

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?

"Show which API host, default ad account and safety settings this server uses" gives a specific verb plus the exact contents of the report, so an agent knows this is a configuration introspection call. It does not name sibling diagnostics (health_check, audit_lookup) to sharpen the boundary, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to inspect server state before acting. There is no statement about when to prefer it over pinterest_ads_health_check or pinterest_ads_audit_lookup, nor any note that it requires no ad account context.

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