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

With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses that the tool has no side effects, requires MCP_API_KEY bearer auth, auto-upgrades badge tiers, resolves links dynamically, and warns not to pin a width. This is substantial behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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?

Though longer than average, it is densely packed: purpose, output formats, dynamic tiering, link behavior, integration responsibility, and auth are all covered with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it states what is returned, how to use the result, what the badge dynamically does, and what credentials are required. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

The input schema already documents the single optional 'product' parameter well (name/domain, substring match, optional when one active product), so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual framing about per-product embeds and tier behavior, but it does not materially extend the parameter protocol.

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 specific verb ('Get'), a unique resource ('Sellular badge embed'), the target (connected account's products), and the output formats (HTML/JSX and Markdown). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling SEO and analytics tools without needing to name them.

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?

It gives clear practical guidance: the tool edits nothing, and the caller should either paste the snippet into the product repo themselves or hand it to a developer. It also notes the account-scoped auth requirement. It does not explicitly single out alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context makes its use case apparent.

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