Measurement setup status

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

Annotations already establish readOnly and non-destructive, but the description adds real context: the data comes from a preview API requiring AVADA_API_KEY, and there is a defined degraded path when the answer is 'unavailable' (surface reason and steps, never invent or zero-fill numbers). It still doesn't say whether failures surface as an error or as a status field, so a 5 isn't warranted.

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 definition is short and front-loads the checks, then the usage trigger, then the auth and failure-handling notes. The opening sentence is a telegraphic fragment rather than prose, but no sentence is wasteful.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does convey the five checks plus an 'unavailable' outcome state. It leaves the exact response shape (per-check booleans vs. a single status) unspecified, which is the main remaining gap for a diagnostic tool.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-level claims are made or needed.

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 names a concrete diagnostic: whether the app is installed, the app embed is on, the ad account is connected, and pixel/CAPI are working. That is a specific check-set rather than a restatement of the title. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling measurement_get_tracking_health, which likely overlaps, so it stops 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?

'Call this first when measured data is missing' gives clear, actionable timing guidance that an agent can apply directly. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a named alternative (e.g., tracking health) for the case where data is present but suspect.

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