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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond that: snippets use the real key prefix and host, follow published SDK APIs, and clarifies that browser identity modes do NOT enable the separate Cookieless visitors report.

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, front-loaded with the core capability. The framework enumeration is long but functional; no padding sentences.

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 4-param read tool with 75% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, frameworks, and the key caveat. It doesn't detail the return format, but 'snippets' is self-evident and everything an agent needs to call it is present.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most params. The description still maps the framework enum values explicitly and clarifies the privacyMode semantics ('Browser identity modes do not enable the separate Cookieless visitors report'), adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific resource (copy-paste install snippets) and enumerates the exact frameworks covered, using the app's real key prefix and host. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_cookieless_install_instructions and other install/report tools.

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 framework list implies when to use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not language or routing to alternatives. The final sentence about Cookieless visitors hints at a boundary with the cookieless tool but frames it as a caveat rather than an explicit 'use X instead' instruction.

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