check_setup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's behavior (verifying license and platform connections, showing plan-based availability) but lacks details on error handling, response format, or any side effects. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's moderately informative without rich behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the key directive ('ALWAYS call this first'). All sentences are relevant, with no wasted words. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from instructions), but it's efficient overall.

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 complexity (simple verification with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, though it could benefit from mentioning what the output might look like (e.g., a status report). For a zero-param tool, this is adequate.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately focuses on usage and purpose. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary parameter discussion.

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 tool's purpose: verifying license tier and connected ad platforms, and showing available features based on plan. It uses specific verbs ('verifies', 'shows') and identifies the resource (license and platform status). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_ad_account_info', which might provide related but different information.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'ALWAYS call this first' and 'Use this before any other tool.' It establishes a clear prerequisite context for all other operations, though it doesn't name specific alternatives or exclusions beyond the general directive.

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