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

Annotations only provide generic non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive flags, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a meaningful behavioral trait: the document is created as a draft shown as 'resume generation' and is only finalized once owner info is set via update_site. The uniqueness constraint is also disclosed.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the most important constraints, and then the draft lifecycle detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 create operation with no output schema and only generic annotations, the description covers purpose, preconditions, uniqueness, and post-creation draft behavior. It leaves the return value unspecified and does not state behavior if a Terms & Conditions document already exists, but the essential information needed to call the tool correctly is present.

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%, so the schema already documents site_id and configuration. The description adds context that site_id must reference an existing site and that only one document is allowed per site, but it does not add detail about the configuration object. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 action ('Create...document'), a specific resource ('Terms & Conditions document for a site'), and adds defining constraints: one per site, site must exist first. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create_* tools.

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 gives explicit preconditions and lifecycle context: only one per site, the site must exist first, and the document remains a draft until owner info is set via update_site. It does not explicitly name update_terms_conditions for modifying existing documents, but the creation flow and dependency on update_site are clear.

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