Get setup guide

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 bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses the return format (Markdown with the exact menu path, command, or config snippet) and the endpoint the guide targets. It stops short of noting there is one guide per app or any caching behavior, so it is not maximal.

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 tight sentences: purpose and target first, triggering condition second, disambiguation from the sibling last. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, return format, and the sibling boundary, which is sufficient to call it correctly. The only shortfall is that it does not say what happens when a user's app is not in the enum, which would require extra inference from the agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter carries an explicit enum with per-value guidance ("exactly as listed"), so the schema already does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only a light constraint that a call targets one specific app, not new meaning about the parameter itself.

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?

Description names a specific verb and resource ("Get the step-by-step instructions to connect one AI app") and ties it to a concrete artifact (the hosted Microsoft Ads MCP server by AdKit). It also explicitly separates itself from list_hosted_tools, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any 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 triggering condition ("Use this when the user asks how to install, add or connect AdKit in a specific app") and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it ("For what the hosted server can do once connected, use list_hosted_tools instead"). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all stated.

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