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

The annotations already declare the operation read-only, closed-world, and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it returns both the install snippet and live status, and it explains that after pasting, published updates propagate automatically, which helps the agent understand the tool’s effect.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the core action and resource. Every clause adds useful information about key scope or post-install update behavior without repetition.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description provides everything needed: what is returned, how to interpret the key prefix, and what happens after installation. No output schema is present, but the description names the returned content sufficiently.

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 100%, and the single parameter is already described as the hosted embed key. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the loc_ prefix for one location and the org_ prefix for a client with several locations, clarifying how to choose the right key.

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: getting the install snippet and live status for a hosted embed key. It also distinguishes the two key forms (loc_… for one location, org_… for a client with several), so an agent can identify exactly what this tool retrieves.

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 clearly positions the tool around hosted embed keys and explains the workflow of pasting the script tag once, with published updates reaching the site automatically. It does not explicitly name alternatives among the siblings, but no sibling is closely overlapping, so the usage context is clear.

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