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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: without a token the snippet is returned with a placeholder plus instructions for finding the real one. That fallback behavior is not derivable from the schema. It still omits explicit read-only/side-effect framing and any note that omitted platform yields a generic snippet.

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, front-loaded with what comes back, then the one conditional that matters for invocation. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the return, and it does (script tag plus ordered steps) along with token fallback behavior. The remaining gap is minor: it doesn't state that omitting platform yields the generic snippet, and it says nothing about permission or read-only characteristics.

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 each parameter has a substantive description, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the token fallback semantics ('placeholder and instructions') and ties platform to the returned steps, but adds little beyond the schema's own wording.

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 specifically what is returned: the exact script tag plus ordered steps for a given platform. Makes the resource (install snippet) and the two outputs (tag and steps) unambiguous. It does not name or contrast with siblings such as list_platforms or verify_installation, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives conditional guidance only for the token input ('pass the contractor's own token if you have it; otherwise...'), which is really parameter handling rather than when-to-use. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus list_platforms or verify_installation, so usage is implied rather than directed.

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