Get FAQ

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape, 'Returns Markdown, one heading per question,' which matters with no output schema defined. It adds nothing about coverage limits or what happens for an unlisted topic.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then the usage trigger, then the return format. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, covered topics, when to call it, and the response format, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It is slightly thin on scope boundaries, such as whether questions outside the listed topics are answered at all.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and baseline 4 applies. It correctly implies a single no-argument call covering all FAQ topics rather than per-topic lookup.

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 answers to common questions) and scopes them to the hosted Reddit Ads MCP server by AdKit, then enumerates the covered topics: price, safety/approvals, API keys, multiple ad accounts, supported AI apps. That topic list is what separates it from siblings like get_setup_guide or get_example_prompts 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 trigger for use: 'Use this before answering such a question from memory,' which tells the agent exactly when to reach for it rather than answering directly. It does not name an alternative tool or state when to prefer get_setup_guide or get_example_prompts instead, so it stops short of 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.