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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations by explaining runtime behavior: fetches public links at load time, shows up to 50 items with images, preserves SplitLink attribution, and distinguishes the two layout modes' loading characteristics. Also specifies the exact return format ('fenced block, unchanged'), which is important for correct invocation.

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 moderately long but every sentence earns its place: purpose, layout semantics, runtime behavior, prerequisite, and return format. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the use case, layout options, behavioral constraints, dependency on a SplitPage, and the exact format in which the code should be returned. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and handle its output.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds useful parameter semantics by explaining what carousel and grid actually produce (horizontal slider with hosted script vs self-contained image grid) and clarifies that the collection is addressed by page slug, which supplements the uuid parameter's meaning without repeating schema text.

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 and resource ('get... embed code') and grounds it in a concrete artifact ('the same code the Split app's Embed Collection menu produces'), leaving no ambiguity about what is returned. The contrast with the output format and use case also makes it distinguishable from sibling get_* tools.

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?

Gives clear intended contexts: pasting into a blog, newsletter template, or any HTML-accepting site. It also provides a prerequisite (requires a SplitPage, collection need not be visible) but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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