List hosted tools

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return format ('Returns a Markdown table') and by clarifying that this tool does not proxy or execute the hosted tools, preventing a common misuse assumption.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by usage then a boundary/return note; the URL is informative rather than filler. Minor verbosity in 'with one line on what each tool does' overlapping the later return-format sentence, but nothing wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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-param, read-only, non-destructive list tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it lists, when to use it, that it does not invoke the listed tools, and that the output is a Markdown table. No output schema exists, and the description still covers return format, so no gap remains.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly says nothing about inputs in a way that might confuse the agent, keeping the focus on scope and return 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?

The description names a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('the tools of the hosted Google Ads MCP server by AdKit'), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling 'list_ad_platforms' by scoping the list to hosted server tools rather than ad platforms. It also states the content shape ('one line on what each tool does'), so an agent knows what it will get back.

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?

It gives a clear positive trigger ('Use this to explain what an agent can do with ad accounts after connecting') and a concrete negative boundary ('It does not call those tools; they only run on the hosted server'). It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, so it is strong context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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