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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the two-tier check (verified status first, then a fallback inspection of homepage HTML) and that the response includes a user-facing hint — behavior an agent could not infer from the schema alone.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary answer (verified or not) before the fallback condition and the hint. No filler, no restatement of the title or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return states, and it does so: verified, code-present-in-HTML, and a hint. It stops short of describing failure cases (invalid hostname, unreachable site) or whether a live fetch occurs, which would round out the picture for an openWorld network operation.

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%, so both `hostname` (with its default-to-create_account behavior) and `setup_token` are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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 uses a specific verb ('Reports') with a concrete resource state: whether the banner has been seen running, and if not, whether the code is present in the homepage HTML. This is functionally distinct from siblings like get_install_snippet or analyze_site, though the description never names or explicitly contrasts itself with those alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the post-installation confirmation step, but the description never says 'use this after adding the snippet' or points to alternatives when verification fails (e.g. get_install_snippet). The two outcome states hint at when it matters without stating it.

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