ads_network_status

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key behavioral trait that the relay is optional and the local MCP functions without it. It says nothing about whether the check performs a network round-trip, how long a failure takes, or what states it can report.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the action front-loaded and the optionality caveat immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing signal.

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 status tool the return value is the whole point, and there is no output schema and no description of what a check reports (connected/disconnected, error detail, relay identity). It also lacks any annotation to fall back on, so a small but real gap remains.

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 is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly makes no parameter claims.

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 (Check) and a specific resource (the Ads Network Relay connection), so an agent can tell this is a connectivity/status probe. It does not differentiate itself from the surrounding ads_network_* siblings (platform_list, inventory_list, sync_manifest), so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 local MCP works without it' implies this is diagnostic and non-blocking, which is useful context for choosing whether to call it. But it never says when to call it versus the other ads_network_* tools, nor what to do with a negative result.

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