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

Annotations already convey read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by disclosing that the embed URL enables adoption measurement by Yuhitsuro, which is a side-effect not captured in annotations. This goes beyond basic safety traits.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core function, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and a key contextual detail (adoption measurement). It doesn't mention prerequisites like the asset being published, but the simplicity and annotations mitigate the gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only indirectly references the format parameter by listing 'HTML, Markdown, or URL'. The slug parameter is implied as the asset identifier but never explicitly defined, leaving users to infer its meaning.

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 clearly states the tool's function: creating an HTML, Markdown, or URL embed for a published asset. The specific verb and resource scope distinguish it from siblings like get_asset (likely fetching asset details) and search_assets (searching for assets).

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 for generating embeds but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. The mention of adoption measurement adds context but does not serve as an exclusion or alternative direction.

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