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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — it returns snippets to paste, not a rendered preview — but says nothing about format, variants selection, or whether the returned code is scoped to the account.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the output clarification immediately after. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers purpose plus the snippet-vs-preview distinction. It leaves one gap: it advertises three embed types (button, pay card, goal bar) but the schema exposes no type/variant parameter, so how to choose among them is unexplained.

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%, so both parameters (text, position) are fully documented in the schema including defaults, maxLength and enum values. 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (HTML embed code) and enumerates the three embeddable artifacts: support button, pay card, live goal bar. It does not explicitly contrast with the near-siblings get_share_assets and get_stream_overlays, so an agent must infer which embed tool fits which surface.

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 scopes the tool to 'the creator own website or blog,' which implies when it is appropriate, but there is no explicit when/when-not or naming of alternatives such as get_share_assets or get_stream_overlays for other surfaces. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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