Cookie Compliance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose useful traits: it returns 'real default, accepted values, description, and CSS variable (design keys only)' and gives a 'fuzzy-matched suggestion' for unknown keys. It stops short of explicitly stating side-effect safety or authentication needs, though 'looks up and returns' strongly implies a read-only operation.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in a single tight sentence. The second sentence is a bit dense with two alternatives, but every clause carries routing information and no filler is present.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how unknown keys behave, and how the tool relates to install and account-management alternatives. It could add explicit error/edge-case behavior, but the essential operational context is present.

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% and the property description already states that 'key' is 'A huOptions.design.* or huOptions.text.en.* key to explain.' The tool description repeats the same constraint without adding examples, formatting rules, or deeper meaning, so it adds no value 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Looks up a huOptions.design.* or huOptions.text.en.* key') and enumerates concrete return values (default, accepted values, description, CSS variable). It also names alternatives (install.getSnippet, account.*) that are outside its scope, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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?

It explicitly writes 'To install the banner on a site use install.getSnippet' and 'to change the settings of a REAL registered banner, the account.* tools need an authenticated connection — call help.explainTokenSetup.' This gives clear when-not-to-use routing while the first sentence establishes when to use this tool for key lookup/explanation.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it records and enforces no consent, expires after 24 hours and replaces itself with a notice, returns HTML with previewMode: true, makes zero backend calls, never accepts a real appID, and never emits previewMode: false. These are critical behavioral disclosures beyond a generic 'generate' statement.

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 long but every sentence is purposeful and front-loaded: the LOOK-ONLY warning comes first, followed by expiration and safety-critical behavior, then the return value, then routing to alternatives. There is no filler or tautology.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers purpose, key behavioral constraints, return type, scope limits, and alternative tools. The only gaps are undocumented parameters, which fall under parameter semantics; operationally an agent has enough context to invoke it safely.

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 only documents text and design (40% coverage). The description adds that the output is 'styled per the given design/text overrides', clarifying those two parameters and referencing demo.explainConfigKey for valid design keys. However, blocking, globalCookie, and currentLanguage receive no semantic explanation, so the low schema coverage is not fully compensated.

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 opens with 'LOOK-ONLY PREVIEW of the Cookie Compliance banner' and explicitly states 'for showing someone how it would LOOK, never for adding consent management to a site.' It identifies a specific verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes itself from install.getSnippet by declaring 'NOT AN INSTALL'.

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 gives when-to-use ('for showing someone how it would LOOK') and when-not-to-use ('never for adding consent management'), then names the alternatives: install.getSnippet (needs an AppID), help.startSignup, account.* tools (need authenticated connection), and help.explainTokenSetup. Nothing is left to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool returns, that it validates existing design values, that it checks WCAG AA contrast pairs, and the critical preview-vs-live behavior along with why the live banner overrides page-local design. This is detailed, accurate, and useful context.

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 front-loaded with the primary use case and the important live-banner caveat is highlighted. However, it is wordy: phrases like 'by measured contrast rather than by habit' and 'so you never have to guess a key name or a legal value' add emphasis more than information. Still, the length is mostly justified by the design-scoping nuance.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns, what it validates, and the crucial preview-vs-live behavior. It also names follow-up tools for applying changes. Minor gaps remain around exact output structure and behavior when no inputs are provided, but an agent can select and invoke the tool confidently.

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 input schema already documents both top-level parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the brand object as site facts ('what you can see') and the design object as existing overrides to validate, and by telling the agent it does not need to know design key names.

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 opens with a clear 'THE TOOL TO USE when the banner needs to look like the site it sits on', specifying a concrete goal and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the apply/update path by saying this tool derives and validates design, while live banner changes go through account.previewDesignChange and account.updateDesign.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: when the banner needs to match the site's look. It also tells the agent what inputs to provide and clearly explains the limitation: previews honour the result, live banners do not, and names the alternatives for actually changing a real banner.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the tool is 'static instructions only,' returns no account data, and that 'the agent cannot create the credential itself,' which prevents false expectations about side effects or data access.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core behavior, and every sentence earns its place: what it returns, when to call it, and its limitations. There is no redundant filler or restating of the tool name.

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 parameterless informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, under what conditions to invoke it, and what it will not do, which is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context by explaining what kind of content is returned, which is more meaningful than parameter details would be for an empty-parameter tool.

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 ('Returns how') and a clear resource: how a Hu-manity customer connects their real account so account.* tools become available. It also distinguishes its scope from general help tools by naming the two routes it covers and the exact condition tied to account.* availability.

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 'Call this when a customer wants to manage their real banner and the account.* tools are not available,' giving a clear trigger condition. It does not name sibling alternatives or state explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but the condition is specific enough that an agent can route correctly.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses that the tool cannot create the account for the customer, specifies what the customer must do versus what the assistant takes over, and clarifies what is returned (signup URL and split of work).

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 front-loaded with the trigger condition and continues with the return value and actionable workflow. Every sentence contributes necessary context: when to use, what the customer does, what the assistant does, and the important limitation about not creating the account.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential operational context: trigger condition, return value, next steps, and the split of responsibilities. It even names the follow-up tool (install.getSnippet) for going live, making the workflow context complete.

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 describes the single 'domain' parameter at 100% coverage, including its purpose and usage. The description mentions domain in the context of the work split but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a direct imperative ('CALL THIS') tied to a specific condition: the site needs cookie consent and has no Cookie Compliance account yet. It clearly identifies the tool's function—returning the signup URL and the division of work between customer and assistant—and distinguishes it from the alternative of a hand-written banner.

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?

It explicitly states when to call the tool ('when a site needs cookie consent and the owner has no Cookie Compliance account yet') and contrasts it with using a hand-written banner. It also gives post-call guidance ('hand them the URL and continue once they have an AppID'), though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or describe when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it states the tool returns a live embed snippet plus placement rules, and explains that the returned CMP is a real consent management platform that blocks scripts pre-consent, signals Consent Mode, honors GPC, keeps proof records, and applies regional rules. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 longer than ideal, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured into clear usage/alternative/next-step segments. A few clauses are more persuasive than informative, such as 'all of which are what the consent actually has to do,' preventing a perfect score.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description names the return value ('live embed snippet plus the placement rules'). It also covers prerequisites, sibling routing, and follow-up authentication for account.* tools. For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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% and each parameter already has rich documentation, including defaults and guidance for appID. The tool description reinforces the AppID precondition but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'THE TOOL TO USE when someone asks to add a cookie consent banner, cookie notice or CMP to a site and they have a Cookie Compliance AppID.' It names a specific verb, resource, and input condition, and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like demo.generateSnippet by requiring an AppID.

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 explicit: use this when the user has a Cookie Compliance AppID; otherwise call help.startSignup. It also gives routing for previews (demo.generateSnippet) and for later settings changes (account.* tools plus help.explainTokenSetup), and says to prefer this over writing banner code by hand.

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