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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the output varies by platform, includes a JSX variant for React/Next.js, and specifies exact placement contexts (before </head>, App Store Connect/Google Play Console fields). No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact: two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently covers web, iOS/Android, and the no-app-id case, earning its place for each clause.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary use cases: web script snippet with JSX variant, iOS/Android hosted policy URL and exact store fields, and the prerequisite of an app id with a clear fallback to claim_app. This is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%—all three parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description adds some context around platform-specific output but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents appId, accent, and platform thoroughly, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource ('what to install for a LexVibe app id'), then enumerates platform-specific outputs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like claim_app (create an app) and generate_policies (generate policies), so the agent knows this is about retrieving an install snippet.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative: 'No app id yet? Call claim_app to create one in the user's account.' It also clarifies that web returns a script snippet and iOS/Android return policy URLs and store fields, giving the agent clear context on when this tool is appropriate and what to use instead when precondition not met.

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