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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that no account is required, that the operation is idempotent per domain, that a claim link is emailed to the owner, and what is returned. It stops short of covering error cases (e.g., localhost rejection from the schema) or any rate limits, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its returns, then constraints (no account, idempotent) and the owner-email hint. The final sentence largely restates the schema's owner description, a minor redundancy that keeps it from a 5.

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, and the description compensates by naming the returned artifacts (script tag, claim URL). It covers auth (none) and idempotency, but omits failure behavior for invalid domains and how an existing site's config is treated, leaving a small gap for a provisioning tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, establishing the baseline of 3. The description reinforces the owner-email behavior but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema states, and 'via' is never mentioned.

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 specific verb and resource ('Creates (or finds) a free Shortbread consent-banner site for a domain') and enumerates the concrete returns: script tag for </head> and a claim URL. This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_snippet, check_install, and scan_site, which an agent can rule out without opening a schema.

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?

'No account needed' and 'Idempotent per domain' imply usage context, and 'Pass the owner's email' gives a conditional action. However, it never explicitly routes between this tool and get_snippet or check_install (e.g., 'use get_snippet if the site already exists'), leaving the when-to-use-vs-alternative decision to inference.

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