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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that the badge auto-upgrades by tier and that its link resolves dynamically per click to either a featured article or the directory page. It also specifies an authentication requirement (MCP_API_KEY bearer token) and a constraint (never pin a width), and confirms 'edits nothing' consistent with readOnlyHint.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides behavioral and usage details in a logical flow. While every sentence carries useful information, it is slightly verbose (a paragraph for a simple retrieval tool) and could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (dynamic badge behavior, auth requirement) and the absence of an output schema, the description completely covers what is returned (HTML and Markdown), how the badge behaves, and what the caller should do with the result. No critical gaps remain for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds only slight context ('one of the connected account's products') without supplementing the substring match, optional behavior, or other semantics already present in the schema.

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 states a specific verb (get) and resource (the Sellular badge embed) plus the output formats (HTML/JSX and Markdown). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing solely on badge embed retrieval, with no other tool in the sibling list serving that purpose.

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 clearly explains what to do with the result: agents working in the product's source repo should add the snippet to the landing page, otherwise hand it to the developer. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., generate_submission_kit or generate_llms_txt) or any exclusions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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