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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content context beyond the annotations: the snippet includes a Consent Mode fallback and ships with multi-platform install steps, which tells the agent what it will receive.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler: the deliverable is named first, the platform list second. Nothing to trim.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of telling the agent what comes back (embed line plus install steps). It leaves one meaningful edge case unstated: behavior when the site has no banner or consent configuration yet, which an agent would need to interpret an error or empty result.

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% and the single parameter is documented inline ('Site id from list_sites or create_site'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about site_id. Baseline 3 applies for a one-parameter tool with a fully documented 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the one-line PrivacyPill embed ... for a site', and enumerates the accompanying install steps (HTML, GTM, WordPress, Shopify, Webflow). This is clearly distinct from sibling mutations like configure_banner or create_site, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs embed code to hand to a site owner. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of the alternative of configuring a banner first, and no stated prerequisite that the site actually has a banner configured.

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