Verify analytics installation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, lowering the burden. The description adds useful behavioral context: it uses a 'proof-of-life receipt' rather than reading analytics or sending synthetic traffic, which clarifies the mechanism and reinforces the safe, non-intrusive nature of the call.

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?

A single, well-constructed sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the key exclusions. Every word contributes meaning; there is no fluff.

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 safety-critical annotations already present, the description sufficiently covers purpose, mechanism, and exclusions. No output schema exists, so no return-value details are required; the description gives enough for an agent 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 description coverage is 100% — the only parameter, projectId, is described as 'Clarvivo project ID' in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond that, so 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?

Uses a specific verb ('Check') tied to a concrete resource ('Clarvivo's proof-of-life receipt') and states exactly what it confirms: traffic from the deployed site has arrived. Also differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly excluding analytics reads and synthetic event generation.

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 makes clear when this tool is appropriate: to verify installation without touching analytics or emitting synthetic events. This implies when not to use it (e.g., use get_stats for analytics reads), though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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