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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that with 'No network call' (confirming a local, deterministic lookup consistent with openWorldHint=false) and the scope boundary 'Technical findings, not legal advice', which manages expectations about output.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and examples, with the 'no network call' and 'not legal advice' caveats placed last. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is redundant.

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 single-parameter, no-network lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers both accepted input modes, the behavioral constraint, and the advice-vs-fact scope. There is no meaningful gap an agent would need filled before calling it.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's examples ('THIRD_PARTY_PRE_CONSENT', 'Cookiebot') reinforce the polymorphic input, but they convey essentially the same meaning the schema already documents (finding code or platform name), adding no syntax, format, or case-sensitivity detail.

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 (Explain) and two concrete resources (a CookieInspector finding code, a named consent platform), each with a real example ('THIRD_PARTY_PRE_CONSENT', 'Cookiebot'). This is clearly distinct from the scan-oriented siblings (start_scan, get_scan_findings, prescan_site), so an agent can route without ambiguity.

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?

Gives clear usage context: use it to decode a report finding code or to learn what to check in a given consent platform, and 'No network call' signals it is a static lookup rather than a live scan. It never explicitly names an alternative (e.g. get_scan_findings) or states when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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