verify_snippet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds details beyond annotations: it fetches the public URL, looks for a widget marker, rejects non-public hosts, and defines return values. This provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context, constraints, and return values. No wasted words; every sentence 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 verification tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, constraints, return values, and troubleshooting. It is complete given the tool's simplicity.

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% for the single 'url' parameter, with a description. The description adds the behavioral constraint that only public http(s) hosts are allowed and localhost/private-network addresses are rejected, which adds value beyond 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 ('verify') and resource ('that the LexVibe cookie-banner snippet is actually LIVE on a deployed site'), and distinguishes it from sibling 'install_snippet' by noting that this tool checks production deployment rather than local file edits.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('Run it after deploying') and contrasts with install_snippet. It also provides constraints (only public http(s) hosts) and troubleshooting guidance if 'missing'. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention other sibling alternatives.

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