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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return content (iframe HTML and hosted-page URL) and implies a read-only retrieval operation, but it omits explicit behavioral details such as permission requirements, error conditions, or idempotency. This is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences and front-loads the return value. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema's required fields, but overall it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the return value briefly but leaves the meaning of both required parameters and any relevant behavioral context unexplained.

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 0% and the description only says 'Requires org_id and setup_claim.' It adds no meaning about what either parameter represents, expected format, or how setup_claim is obtained. The schema itself only provides type/format, so the description fails to compensate.

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 and resource: it 'Returns the iframe HTML' and 'hosted-page URL.' An agent can clearly tell this tool produces embed code. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_install_instructions or set_hosted_page, which keeps it from a 5.

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 only usage information is 'Requires org_id and setup_claim,' which restates required schema fields. There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as get_install_instructions or set_hosted_page, and no conditions or exclusions are provided.

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