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

The description adds useful return information (site, banner settings, embed snippet) and a plan constraint that annotations do not cover. However, it does not disclose what happens if the domain already exists, whether duplicate creation errors, or any permission requirements, which matters for a non-idempotent create tool.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste: purpose first, return value second, plan constraint last. Every sentence earns its place and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Given the nested design object and no output schema, the description adequately states the return shape and points to configure_banner via the schema for design fields. It still leaves gaps around duplicate-domain behavior, default banner creation semantics, and license requirements for a create operation with nested optional configuration.

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%, so the schema already documents domain, name, license_id, and the nested design object, including a pointer to configure_banner for design fields. The description adds only the implicit domain parameter and no additional semantics 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 and resource: adding a domain and creating its cookie banner in PrivacyPill. It is clearly distinguishable from configure_banner (which modifies existing settings) and from get_site/list_sites.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Add a domain' and the free-plan limit is mentioned, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to use configure_banner instead, and no explanation of what to do for an existing site.

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