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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers richly. It discloses that no consent is recorded or enforced, that the snippet expires after 24 hours and replaces itself with a notice, that previewMode is always true with zero backend calls, and that it never emits previewMode: false. This goes far beyond what annotations could have provided.

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 information-dense, with the key warning front-loaded ('LOOK-ONLY', 'NOT AN INSTALL'). There is some redundancy between 'records and enforces no consent' and the installation warning, but every major piece of guidance earns its place.

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?

Without an output schema, the description still tells the agent the return type (ready-to-paste HTML) and the previewMode: true behavior. It gives sufficient context for safe use, though the undocumented blocking and globalCookie parameters remain a small gap for a tool with nested objects.

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 40%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that design/text overrides map to huOptions.design and huOptions.text.en, but it does not explain the semantics of blocking, globalCookie, or currentLanguage. The description adds meaning for two of five parameters but leaves the others to schema name alone.

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', giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from install.getSnippet by explicitly stating it is 'NOT AN INSTALL' and never emits previewMode: false, so an agent can tell it apart from its 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?

Usage is spelled out explicitly: it is for previewing how the banner would LOOK, not for adding consent management. It names the exact alternatives (install.getSnippet, help.startSignup, account.* tools, help.explainTokenSetup) and gives exclusion conditions like 'Never accepts a real appID'.

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