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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden: it usefully discloses that the result is served publicly at a stable URL and that 'published' is a toggle, which is real behavioral context. It omits auth requirements, whether an existing policy is replaced, and reversibility of publication.

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, front-loaded with the action and public-serving consequence, followed by compact parameter enumeration. Slightly listy phrasing but no wasted text.

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 a nested-object parameter with zero schema documentation and no output schema, the description covers the nested fields adequately. It still leaves open whether publishing replaces an existing policy, what the tool returns, and what 'published' defaults to.

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 0% and the privacy parameter is an untyped object, so the description must compensate; it enumerates entity, contact_email, sections[{heading, body}], and optional intro, effective_date (YYYY-MM-DD), and published. Only product_id is left unexplained, and the URL template conveys its meaning.

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 (publish) and resource (privacy policy), plus the concrete public URL it produces at /legal/{product_id}/privacy. Sibling get_privacy_policy is clearly the read counterpart, so an agent can distinguish them without opening schemas.

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 phrase 'for app store review links' implies the intended scenario, giving implied usage rather than explicit guidance. There is no statement of when not to use it, whether it overwrites an existing policy, or a pointer to get_privacy_policy as the read alternative.

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