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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine extra context: the 24-hour lookback window, that it 'sends no events and grants no approval', the connected-site precondition, and an explicit scope boundary (not business outcomes, traffic, attribution, or Meta delivery).

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?

Front-loaded with the core check, then parameters, then read-only status and scope limits. Dense but each clause carries weight; the run of negative exclusions is slightly heavy but defensible for a verification tool.

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?

A read-only verification tool with no output schema, and the description adequately covers scope, time window, what is excluded, and the precondition. It stops short of describing the actual response shape (per-event receipt result), which would be the final missing piece.

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?

Reports 0% schema coverage, but the nested event schema actually carries field descriptions, patterns, an enum, and maxItems. The description adds the 'up to 20 unique' constraint and clarifies the installation/event-pair shape, which is useful but largely overlaps with the schema; a 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?

States a specific verb and resource: verifying whether PageView/conversion event IDs from an activated live installation reached Tyton's dashboard storage within the last 24 hours. This is easy to distinguish from siblings like verify_install, tracking_status, or get_setup_progress.

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?

Gives clear context for use (post-activation receipt verification, event/source pairs) and an explicit exclusion ('Verification callbacks are not live events') plus a precondition ('Requires a connected site'). It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools for adjacent questions, so not a full 5.

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