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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real runtime context about the generated code — batched, fail-open, never blocks your API — which tells the agent the snippet is safe to recommend in production paths. It stops short of describing snippet size or what happens if the slug is omitted.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the deliverable is front-loaded and the behavioral guarantees follow immediately.

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 two-parameter, read-only generator with no output schema, the description conveys enough: what is produced, what it captures, and that it is non-blocking. Missing only the linkage between the framework/slug inputs and the resulting snippet and which frameworks are supported (which the enum covers).

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 only 50%: the 'slug' property is documented in-schema but 'framework' has no description, only an enum. The description mentions neither parameter and does not explain that the snippet is templated per framework or that slug personalizes it, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap. The listed fields (method, route, status, latency, customer, plan) describe the snippet's content, not the inputs.

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 concrete deliverable — copy-paste server code that reports request telemetry (method, route, status, latency, customer, plan) to API Meter — so the agent knows this produces a snippet rather than data. That clearly separates it from siblings like get_usage and export_usage, though it never names them explicitly.

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 instrumentation/setup step, but there is no statement of when to call it versus get_usage or create_account, nor any note about prerequisites (e.g., needing an account first). The framework/slug choice is left entirely to inference.

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