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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses non-obvious behavior: the tool does not install or verify anything, the snippet must be installed verbatim (not rebuilt), and the hobby site's data-id is the only place the counter reads the site ID. This is exactly the kind of added context an agent needs.

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 tight and front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides a response example and important caveats. It packs several instructions efficiently without fluff, though it is a bit long due to the embedded JSON example and multiple caveats.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is very complete: it includes a full response example, explains the read-only nature, advises on verbatim installation, and highlights the hobby-site gotcha. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool and interpret the result correctly.

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 the site and type parameters. The description adds a response example showing type='default' and a data-id note about the snippet, but it does not substantially enrich the meaning of the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns the script tag and the URL it loads, which is a specific verb-resource pairing. It is distinguishably about the install snippet rather than tracking settings or reports, so an agent can separate it from siblings like get_tracking_settings without ambiguity.

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 provides clear usage instructions: install the snippet verbatim, do not rebuild from script_url, and note the hobby-site data-id caveat. It also states the tool is read-only and does not install or verify, giving useful context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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