Verify the widget is live on a website

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the operation's mechanism ('Fetch a page') and the precise boolean semantics of the result. It doesn't cover edge cases like redirects or JS rendering, but the annotations already establish it as a safe, non-destructive read.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the action is front-loaded, the success criterion is explicit, and the usage context is appended in a single clarifying clause. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

The tool has one self-describing parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema. The description covers what it does, when to run it, and what 'installed' means, leaving no essential gap for an agent to select or invoke 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 url parameter is fully documented in the input schema. The description adds a mild contextual nuance ('customer's website') but does not need to elaborate further for a single, simple parameter.

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') on a specific resource (the customer's website page) and defines the exact success condition: 'installed is true only when both elements are present.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mira_widget_embed or crawl_company_website.

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 an explicit usage trigger: 'Intended after the snippet is installed.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough given the distinct purpose and single parameter.

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