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.