telemost_ads_networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable business context about costs per call, which is not in the annotations. It also clarifies the data domain. While it doesn't detail return formatting or pagination, the combination is sufficient for this read-only 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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences: the first defines the tool's core value, the second adds a cost caveat and pointer to related resource. No wasted words, and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, but strong annotations, the description fully covers what the tool returns (ad networks, minimum deposits), its purpose (comparison), and cost implications. It is contextually complete for a simple read-only informational tool.

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 (schema shows an empty properties object), so the baseline is 4. There is no need for parameter explanations, and the description correctly omits them.

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 clearly states the tool provides 'Telegram advertising data: available ad networks and their minimum deposits' and explicitly distinguishes its purpose from siblings like telemost_ads_posts by focusing on comparing networks. The verb 'compare' and specific resources (ad networks, minimum deposits) make the intent 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 a clear use case: 'compare where to run campaigns.' It also adds a practical guideline with the 'Paid per call in USDC' warning and cross-reference to telemost_catalog for pricing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for different scenarios, so a minor gap remains.

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