Verify the In-Site installation, and run the go-live checklist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and succeeds. It discloses that the tool exercises steps 2 and 3 against a real account, performs static file checks, diagnoses an empty Usage API answer instead of calling it 'no rights', and reports unverifiable items as pending rather than pretending they passed.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: it gives the primary purpose, the concrete verification steps, the static checks, the pending-item behavior, and the final checklist. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns conceptually: verified items, pending items, and the twelve-item checklist. It covers edge cases like 'reported as unverified rather than passing' and what it cannot verify, giving an agent enough context to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description does not restate parameter-level details. The description adds useful context around offer_ref and customer_ref behavior, but the schema already thoroughly documents each parameter, so no additional compensation is needed.

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 and resource: it 'Checks an In-Site installation before it ships' and runs the go-live checklist. It goes well beyond the title by specifying exactly what it verifies — account wiring, static file rules, and API-unverifiable items — making it clearly distinct from installation_status or install_insite.

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 gives a clear temporal usage cue: 'Run it before shipping, not after.' It also describes what the tool does end to end, which implies the right moment to invoke it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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