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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the data is 'live' from pwamart.com, the output is delivered as pasteable HTML and Markdown snippets, and it includes a backlink verification signal (the ✓ and a followed link). It does not mention rate limits or caching, but the substantive behavioral traits are disclosed.

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, both front-loaded: the first sentence delivers the resource plus return content and the verification detail; the second gives the lookup-mode choice. Nothing is repeated and no filler is present.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so well (rating, installs, HTML/Markdown snippets, backlink status). For a 2-parameter, zero-required read tool this is nearly complete; only explicit guidance on what happens when neither slug nor site matches is missing.

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 50% — only 'site' is documented, 'slug' is bare. The description compensates by explaining the either/or relationship ('Pass slug, or site ... to find which listing a site is'), giving the slug parameter meaning it lacks in the schema and clarifying that site takes a homepage URL used for reverse lookup.

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+resource (get the live 'Get it on pwamart' badge for a listing) and enumerates what it returns: rating, installs, HTML and Markdown snippets, plus a homepage backlink check. That is concrete enough to separate it from sibling readers like pwamart_get_app or pwamart_get_collection.

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 implies the usage context (you want an embeddable badge snippet for an app's site) but never states when to prefer this over pwamart_get_app or the other listing tools, nor any prerequisites or failure conditions. It does specify the two lookup modes, which helps route the call, but that is parameter guidance rather than when-to-use guidance.

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