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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it explains the score range, the three stance values with translations, and that cached results may be returned when available.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The parenthetical translations are compact and useful, and the cache note is brief.

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 annotations and an output schema, the description covers the key output semantics and cache behavior. It is nearly complete, though it still lacks explicit routing guidance relative to the similar consent-related siblings.

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 the only parameter is fully documented in the schema as a domain without scheme or path. The description mentions the domain input but adds no additional syntax or formatting guidance 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 states a specific resource, a domain, and specific outputs: a 0-100 signal score and AI-training stance. It is clear what the tool produces, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings such as check_ai_consent or can_ai_use.

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?

The description says this is a free summary and may use cache, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools. An agent must infer that this is the quick/free consent-score lookup rather than a detailed or authoritative check.

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