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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is known. The description adds that the result is a 'document', which provides a small behavioral hint about the return value, but it does not go further into formats, versions, or error behavior. This is minimally adequate given annotation coverage.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant elaboration.

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 single-parameter read-only getter with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose. It could be more complete by stating the returned representation or behavior when no Terms & Conditions exist, but nothing critical is missing for invoking 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?

The input schema already documents site_id at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that the site context is relevant without adding parameter format, constraints, or additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Terms & Conditions document') tied to a site, which clearly distinguishes it from the create/update/delete siblings in the tool list. It also separates it from related policy tools by naming the exact document type.

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 implies the tool should be used when you need a site's Terms & Conditions document, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention the create/update/delete counterparts. Context is clear but exclusions and routing guidance are absent.

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