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

It goes well beyond the basic annotations by disclosing that legislation flags are enabled by default, that no policy products are active until created, and that the response contains a dashboard_url field. It also instructs the agent to surface business_details_warning when present, which is valuable runtime behavior not available from annotations.

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 four sentences long and every sentence earns its place: purpose, default legislation flags, inactive-policy state, and response handling. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler or repetition.

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 covers key contextual information not present in the schema or annotations: defaults, response dashboard_url, and the warning field to surface. Even without an output schema, it gives the agent actionable output guidance, though it could mention other response fields that might be needed for follow-up operations.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already carries the burden of explaining parameters. The description adds context about defaults and response behavior, but it does not add meaning to individual input parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new iubenda site.' It also adds default behavior details, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from siblings like create_privacy_cookie_policy or create_terms_conditions.

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 provides useful context by stating that no Privacy Policy, Cookie Solution, or Terms & Conditions is active until explicitly created, which implies when sibling creation tools are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria.

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