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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that a home preview may return a requiredDecision forcing a mirror-vs-editable choice — but leaves the response shape otherwise opaque.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the key constraint front-loaded, which is good. However, the density comes from unexplained internal jargon rather than tight phrasing, so brevity is achieved at the cost of legibility.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description omits what the check actually returns (aside from the requiredDecision aside) and doesn't clarify the mirror-vs-editable decision it references. An agent has to guess at the return contract and the workflow trigger.

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?

Schema coverage is 88%, so the schema already documents nearly all eight parameters (context, guestToken, contains/notContains, etc.). The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

It signals a non-mutating verification of 'composed HTML', which is a recognizable verb+resource, but the phrasing is jargon-heavy ('composed HTML', 'Verify-only'). It does not clearly distinguish itself from the sibling verify_page, so an agent could confuse the two.

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 only guidance is the cryptic fragment 'ask mirror vs editable before structure_*', which hints at a conditional workflow but names no clear when-to-use condition or alternative tool. There is no explicit routing versus verify_page or edit_page.

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