ads_discord_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a real behavioral trait: the authentication model (official bot connector only, no user-account tokens or passwords). That is exactly the kind of auth-requirement context annotations would otherwise supply. It omits what a failed check looks like and whether a live network call is made.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed immediately by the one constraint an agent most needs to know. No filler.

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 status check with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and auth prerequisites adequately. The main residual gap is that it does not characterize the response (e.g., connected vs. not-connected, what 'bot identity' returns), which matters slightly more here because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 per the baseline there is little for the description to add or omit. Nothing in the description misrepresents the empty input surface.

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?

Clear verb 'Check' paired with a specific resource set: the Discord bot connector, its credentials, and the current bot identity. This is distinguishable from the other Discord siblings (guild_list, channel_list, message_search, channel_send), which all operate on guild data rather than connector health. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is not 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers this is the pre-flight/health check for the Discord integration. The sentence 'Normal user-account tokens and passwords are not supported' functions as a constraint on valid inputs rather than a when-to-use rule, and no alternative tool or exclusion path is named.

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