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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavior: it returns the embed code, describes the rendered widget behavior and look, and notes the single-placement requirement. There is no contradiction with the readOnlyHint.

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?

Three dense sentences with the core return value and target frameworks up front; the widget-behavior details are relevant context rather than padding. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter snippet tool, the description covers what is returned and where it should be used. It would be slightly stronger if it stated what the response looks like or the default framework/position, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.

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 only 33%, and the description does little to compensate: it repeats the framework enum but never explains position choices, language defaults, or what happens when parameters are omitted. An agent must infer the meaning of position and the optionality semantics from the bare schema.

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?

The description names a specific operation—returning the chat widget code—and specifies the resource (ORYKSA chat widget) plus the supported integration frameworks. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which pertain to customization, FAQ, or setup rather than code retrieval.

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?

It explains the intended usage context: the snippet is placed once in the site's root layout. It does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough to steer an agent toward this tool for installation code rather than for configuration.

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