Get FAQ

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world call, so the description does not need to repeat safety details. It adds useful behavior beyond the annotations by stating the return format is Markdown with one heading per question.

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 two tightly written sentences: purpose first, then usage guidance, then return format. The topic list is compact and earns its place by clarifying what the FAQ covers.

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 simple zero-parameter read-only FAQ tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool answers, when to call it, and what the returned content looks like.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters and has an empty object schema, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it fetches answers to common questions about the hosted Microsoft Ads MCP server. It also enumerates the covered FAQ topics, which makes the tool's scope clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the setup-guide sibling.

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 gives clear usage guidance: call this before answering relevant questions from memory. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, but the covered topics tightly scope the intended use.

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