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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the tool only returns requirements, it does not turn on collection, and actual code deployment is a separate step — a common source of agent misunderstanding.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the deliverable comes first, the caveat about deployment second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

Read-only, two fully documented params, no output schema — the description compensates by enumerating what the instructions cover. Only minor gap is it doesn't indicate the shape/format of the returned instructions (code snippets vs. prose), but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (app, environment) are documented in the schema, including the orgSlug/appSlug form and the environment default. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource: returns server-side integration requirements for Cookieless visitors, and enumerates the contents (trusted visitor IP handling, public paths, opt-outs, secret ingest keys, verification). This clearly separates it from get_install_instructions and from get_cookieless_report/get_cookieless_status, though the sibling distinction is left implicit rather than named.

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?

Clear context for use — setting up cookieless collection — plus an explicit negative: 'this tool does not enable collection by itself' and deployment in site code is required. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (e.g. get_install_instructions for standard installs) or stating prerequisites such as which app/environment to query.

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