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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious context the annotations cannot convey: the token is not a secret because it ships in page source by design, and it duplicates what get_analytics_snippet returns. It does not say what happens if a product has no analytics tag configured, which keeps it from a 5.

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 core identity and the token value are front-loaded, and each clause carries information (what it is, that it is not secret, where it already exists, when to use it). The final sentence is a list of three usage modes that could be tightened, but nothing is 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned ('the data-site value'), where it comes from, its secrecy status, and the alternatives. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to explain the result.

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 productKey parameter is documented in-schema with a pointer to list_products. The description only implies the one-product scope ('for one product') and adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 resource and scope: 'The raw analytics site token for one product — the data-site value inside the krawlup analytics tag.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_analytics_snippet by noting the token is already embedded in that snippet, so an agent can choose between them without opening a 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?

Gives concrete when-to-use conditions — hand-written tags, the @krawlup/analytics-tag npm package, custom integrations — and implicitly routes snippet-based setups to get_analytics_snippet. It also pre-empts a common misuse ('never ask the founder to paste the token'), which is genuine operational guidance.

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