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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which leaves quota and async behavior unexplained. The description fills that gap usefully by disclosing the monthly-scan quota consumption, the browser/consent-click behavior, the 5-page cap, and the returned scanId for polling. It does not state expected duration or whether a failed scan still consumes quota.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then constraints, then the follow-up workflow. Every clause earns its place; even the closing 'technical findings, not legal advice' line carries real meaning for a compliance tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return value (scanId) and the polling chain. Given a non-idempotent, quota-consuming async job, it is nearly complete; only runtime expectations and auth/permission requirements for 'the connected account' are left implicit.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: 'main (US East)' and 'eu-de (Germany, for EU-targeted banners)' explain which region to choose and why. evaluateCcpa is left to the schema, which documents its default, so no gap is created.

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 ('Start'), resource ('full CookieInspector scan'), and binds the scope precisely: real browser, before and after the consent click, up to 5 pages, on the connected account. This distinguishes it from the sibling prescan_site by the word 'full' plus the page/consent detail, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Clear context is given: it produces a scanId to poll with get_scan_status and then get_scan_summary, which routes the agent through the correct follow-up siblings. It also notes the tool consumes the plan's monthly scans. What is missing is an explicit when-not-to-use, e.g. when to prefer the lighter prescan_site instead.

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