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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, it discloses the important caveat that script_detected does not guarantee the widget is enabled or visible, and that unverified_spa may load the script dynamically. This is meaningful behavioral context annotations cannot convey; only minor gaps remain (no mention of authentication or rate limits).

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 front-loaded with the core action, then maps statuses to interpretations, then gives fallback verification steps. Each sentence carries information, though the remediation passage makes it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, and it wisely spends its words on interpreting status values instead. For a one-parameter read-only check, an agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single domain parameter is already documented as accepting a bare domain or a full URL. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('check for evidence that Chatway is installed on a website for the connected account') and defines what each resulting status means, so an agent knows precisely what question this tool answers. It is clearly separable from the sibling get-installation-code, which retrieves code rather than verifying installation.

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?

It gives concrete procedural guidance for ambiguous outcomes: if browser access is available, open the site and verify; otherwise ask the user to start a test chat and re-check. What is missing is an explicit pointer to sibling alternatives such as get-installation-code when the agent actually needs the snippet rather than a status check.

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