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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact: no API key is needed, which tells an agent this can be called before authentication is configured. It also discloses the return payload (snippet plus guide URL) even though no output schema exists. It stops short of noting whether the snippet is stable or changes over time.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the primary return value, then appends the secondary value and the auth note. No redundant restatement of the tool name and no filler.

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 two-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, what it needs, and its auth posture, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The remaining gap is placement in the install workflow relative to check_install.

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%, so the schema already documents both siteKey and platform fully. The description only restates that the output is keyed on a site key and platform, adding no format, validation, or fallback detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: returns the exact <script> install snippet for the Consentio cookie banner and the platform install guide URL. The scope is narrow and concrete enough that an agent can distinguish it from siblings like check_install or consentio_overview without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the first step of installation, but the description never says when to call it versus check_install (which presumably verifies installation) or consentio_overview. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites beyond the site key requirement.

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