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

The description discloses that the document is created as a draft, shown as 'resume generation' in the dashboard, and only becomes complete once owner info is set via update_site. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the uninformative all-false annotations, though it doesn't cover duplicate-call behavior or return/output details.

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 concise sentences each add essential information: the core action, the preconditions, and the follow-up workflow. There is no filler, repetition of schema details, or unnecessary expansion.

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?

The description fully supports a correct invocation by covering the required prerequisite, uniqueness constraint, draft lifecycle, and optional next step. It does not describe success/error responses or the optional configuration object, but those are either schema-covered or secondary to calling the tool correctly.

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%, with site_id and configuration/badge_style already described in the input schema. The description adds usage-level constraints like site existence and one-per-site, but it does not add meaning to the parameters 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 specific verb-resource pair: 'Create a Privacy & Cookie Policy document for a site', making the tool's purpose clear. It further distinguishes it from siblings by noting the one-per-site constraint and by pointing to create_site_pcp_service as the separate service-adding tool.

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 states explicit preconditions: the site must exist first and only one policy is allowed per site. It also lays out the follow-up workflow — set owner info via update_site — and names the alternative for adding services, creating clear when-to-use guidance.

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