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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavior: the badge self-updates from delivered, paid orders, links back to the shop, and requires no API key. The main omission is whether fetching it creates/registers anything server-side or purely reads existing state.

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?

A single dense sentence with the audience ('Seller:') and the payoff front-loaded, followed by the delivery mechanism and the no-cost/no-key note. No filler; the parenthetical is doing real work by naming the output formats.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming SVG, markdown, and HTML. Combined with the one fully-documented parameter and complete annotations, an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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?

Only one parameter and the schema has 100% description coverage (agent_id with an 'ag_…' example and a pointer to register_agent). The description adds nothing beyond that baseline — 'your' gestures at the caller's own agent_id but does not clarify format or source.

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 resource with its concrete output forms: 'your live Word Pass badge for your website or README (SVG plus ready markdown and HTML)'. The badge artifact is clearly distinct from sibling Word Pass tools (check_word_pass, verify_pass, prove_word_pass), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'Seller:' prefix and 'your badge' framing imply this is for sellers embedding a badge, and 'Free, no key' removes an auth question. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to the adjacent Word Pass tools an agent might confuse it with.

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