verify_snippet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with the read-only nature. The description adds detail on behavior: fetches the public URL, looks for widget marker, validates URL (rejects private/localhost). It also explains the exact return format and meanings. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise: 4 sentences covering purpose, usage context, constraints, and return values. It is front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words.

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 verification tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what, why, when, constraints, and result interpretation. Annotations handle safety, so the description meets all needs.

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?

The schema already has a good description for the url parameter (100% coverage). The tool description adds further constraint: 'Only public http(s) hosts are allowed — localhost, private-network and reserved addresses are rejected,' which is not in the schema. This adds meaningful context 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 clearly states the tool verifies that the LexVibe cookie-banner snippet is live on a deployed site. It distinguishes from the sibling tool install_snippet by noting that install_snippet edits local files while this confirms production. The verb 'verify' and specific resource 'snippet live on deployed site' are precise.

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 ('Run it after deploying') and gives constraints ('Only public http(s) hosts allowed'). It provides alternative actions if the snippet is missing ('check that the deploy included the change, or re-run install_snippet and deploy again'). This is comprehensive guidance.

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