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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operational behavior: fetching a public page, checking several conditions, and providing what to fix. It implies a read-only network operation and does not mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but for a verification tool these are reasonably implied. The description adds value beyond a mere 'checks installation' by enumerating the checks.

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 description is two sentences: one states the purpose and the checks, the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the action and outcome, with zero filler. Every word 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?

Given no output schema, the description provides a useful preview of the result by listing what it reports (embed tag presence, token validity, serving status, and fixes). It doesn't specify error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid URL, network failure), but for a single-parameter read-only tool this is adequate. Slightly more detail on output format would push it to 5.

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?

The schema covers the only parameter (url) with a clear description ('The public page URL to check.'), and coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra details like URL format requirements or validation rules, so it stays at the baseline of 3 – the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('fetches' and 'reports') and names the resource (public page) plus the exact checks performed (embed tag presence, token validity, widget serving, and remediation steps). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_install_snippet (which returns the snippet, not verification) and estimate_cost/list_trades (unrelated). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use this after the contractor says they have pasted the tag.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling set makes the context obvious (get_install_snippet is for obtaining the tag, not verifying it). The use case is clear enough for a 4.

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