setup_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool is informational: it shows configuration status and provides setup guides. However, it does not explicitly state that it performs no mutations or other side effects, leaving a slight gap. The behavior described is consistent and plausible for a setup guide, but not exhaustively detailed.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word adds value. It avoids filler or repetition, making it optimally concise and well-structured.

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, parameterless tool, the description is complete enough: it states what the user gets, what information is shown, and what happens for missing configurations. There is no output schema, but the description covers the return semantics adequately. It could be more explicit about the format or level of detail, but that is not critical for this simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no constraints. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, the description need not compensate. It still mentions the key information returned (configuration status and setup guides), which gives context without needing parameter explanations.

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: 'Get step-by-step instructions for configuring the Marketing Analytics MCP server.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools, all of which are data retrieval operations, by focusing on setup and configuration. This makes its purpose immediately clear and unambiguous.

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 implies usage by stating what the tool does: it shows configured APIs and provides guides for missing ones. While it does not explicitly say 'use this when you need setup help,' the context and unique role among data-query siblings make the appropriate usage clear. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but none are needed.

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