Health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but the operation is inherently a safe read with zero parameters and an output schema that documents the return shape. It does disclose the scope of the check (server plus Ads API version) but not whether it performs network calls, requires auth, or can fail/timeout.

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 waste. It is efficient, though so terse that it edges toward under-specification rather than optimal density.

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?

Zero parameters and an output schema mean the return contract needs no prose, so the only real gap is routing guidance among the status/diagnostic siblings, which is absent.

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 schema semantics are a non-issue and the baseline is 4; nothing in the description contradicts or needs to compensate for the schema.

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 phrase 'Server + Google Ads API version health' adds scope beyond the bare name 'health' by naming the two things checked, but it is a noun phrase with no verb and no differentiation from similar siblings such as audit.status or datamanager.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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus audit.status, list_capabilities, or datamanager.status, all of which sound like status/diagnostic tools. The agent must infer that this is a preflight/liveness check.

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