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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that badges deep-link to the listing, the embedder chooses rel freely, and listing status is never conditioned on embedding — useful context beyond a simple 'get'. It doesn't mention authentication or error handling, but for a read-only badge retrieval, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause contributes context about badge variants, optionality, and embedding implications. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently tells the agent what it will receive (three embed snippets) and under what conditions (earned, optional). A note about the exact output format would make it complete, but it's already well-rounded for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already describes the single `slug` parameter with 100% coverage ('Slug of the listing to get badges for'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific action: 'Get the three copy-paste badge embed snippets' and explicitly names the variants ('live on toolfound', 'verified', 'top 3 this week'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_product or get_launch_status, which serve different purposes.

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 context that badges are optional, earned, and do not affect listing status, which helps an agent decide when to call this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state conditions when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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