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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the detection logic, the tier-mapping assumption, the Cookiebot default for sites lacking a tool, and the `incumbent.basis` field that explains the assumption behind the number. It still omits permission/auth needs, failure behavior for unreachable or unrecognized sites, and an explicit statement that it is a read-only scan.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the scan→detect→map→compare pipeline, with no filler. The backtick reference to `incumbent.basis` is a small but earned detail.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values; it only sketches them (annual cost next to Shortbread's price, plus `incumbent.basis`). It does not describe the full response shape, currency handling, per-vendor tier breakdown, or error cases for unscannable sites.

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?

At 50% schema coverage the description should compensate, but it never explains the required `url` parameter (domain vs full URL, protocol expectations). It also introduces a 'page count' concept that drives tier selection without clarifying that the count is derived from the scan rather than supplied, leaving an agent to wonder whether a parameter is missing.

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?

States a concrete action chain (scan site → detect consent tool → map to vendor tier → compare against Shortbread's flat price) and names the vendors it recognizes plus the no-tool fallback. This is clearly distinct from siblings like scan_site, check_install, or get_snippet, which do not produce pricing comparisons.

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?

Usage is only implied by the description — an agent can infer it is for cost-comparison questions, and the fallback behavior for sites without a consent tool is given. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over scan_site or what preconditions exist (e.g. site must be publicly reachable).

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