Get example prompts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating 'Returns a Markdown list,' which tells the agent what to expect in the response. It does not mention the number of prompts or whether the list is static, but that is a minor gap for a simple informational tool.

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 compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and then immediately follows with the usage condition and return format. Every sentence earns its place.

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 informational tool, the description provides enough context: what the tool returns, what it contains, and when to use it. The annotations already cover safety and idempotency, so no additional behavioral disclosure is required.

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 the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none, and the schema is correspondingly empty.

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 and resource: 'Get example prompts' for the hosted TikTok Ads MCP server by AdKit. It gives concrete example categories (reporting, optimizing, launching campaigns), which makes the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_faq or get_setup_guide, so it stops short of a 5.

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 a clear usage condition: 'Use this when the user asks what to try first or what to ask the agent.' This tells the agent exactly when to reach for this tool. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit routing of a 5.

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