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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb "generate" plus "paste-ready embed code" implies a non-mutating, side-effect-free operation, which is useful, but there is no mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or whether anything is persisted.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then the option breakdown. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 simple code-generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and the meaningful enum choice well. It stops short of explaining the required "look" parameter's expected value or the shape of the returned snippet.

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 baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning by explaining each enum value ("iframe" → HTML for Webflow/Notion/WordPress, "react" → drop-in component, "script-tag" → vanilla JS loader). It does not clarify the "look" preset id or the width/height formats.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Generate paste-ready embed code") with clear scope ("for any preset"). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_presets and build_share_url, though it never names an alternative 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?

The description implies usage (you call it to get embed code for a preset) and elaborates on which output format suits which platform, but that is really format-selection guidance rather than when-to-use-this-tool guidance. No exclusions or sibling alternatives are mentioned.

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