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.