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

Annotations already mark it read-only, and the description reinforces this with 'it reports the code, it does not install or verify anything.' It also adds a non-obvious hazard: installing a rebuilt tag from script_url is wrong, and the data-id is the only channel for the counter's site id on hobby sites. This exceeds annotation coverage with actionable detail.

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?

Four sentences, each doing work: purpose, response shape, install rule, hobby-site edge case. Front-loaded with the core purpose and no redundancy.

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 supplies a concrete response JSON with types, plus the installation caveats needed to use the result correctly. Missing error/verification behavior is covered by the read-only note. An agent has everything needed to call and consume it.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description contributes no extra parameter-level semantics beyond the response example showing 'type' as "default" and the site_id integer, which is useful context but doesn't compensate beyond baseline.

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 the artifact precisely: the script tag and its load URL, and gives a concrete response example. The resource (tracking snippet) is distinct from get_tracking_settings because it returns installable code, not settings. Though no sibling is named, the output example makes the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as an installation step: 'Install snippet verbatim; do not rebuild a tag from script_url.' The hobby-site data-id caveat tells agents when additional care is needed. It doesn't name alternatives, but the installation context leaves little ambiguity.

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