Get FAQ

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return format ('Returns Markdown, one heading per question'), which matters because there is no output schema; it could still say whether the content is static or refreshed, hence not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with no padding: what it returns, when to prefer it, and the response format — the last placed where it is most useful. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition covers scope, usage trigger, and return shape. There is no missing prerequisite, auth note, or destructive caveat that an agent would need before calling it.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly avoids inventing parameter behavior and instead spends its words on scope and output shape.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the answers to common questions about the hosted Google Ads MCP server') and then enumerates the covered topics — price, safety and approvals, API keys, multiple ad accounts, supported AI apps. That enumeration is what separates it from near siblings like get_setup_guide and get_example_prompts, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this before answering such a question from memory,' which tells the agent to prefer this tool over recall. It does not name a sibling to use instead for adjacent needs (e.g. setup instructions), so it stops short of full when-not/alternative guidance.

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