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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose crawl scope ('homepage and a few internal pages') and breadth of detection. However it leaves key behavior unstated: whether 'drafts a cookie declaration' persists/writes anything, how long a multi-page crawl takes, and what happens on unreachable or consent-blocked sites.

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 tightly packed sentences, no filler, with the crawl behavior front-loaded and the outputs enumerated after it in a natural scan order.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does the necessary work by listing the categories of results returned. Minor gaps remain around output format and any side effects of drafting the declaration, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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% on the single 'url' parameter ('Site URL or domain'), so the schema already documents syntax. The description adds only indirect meaning by implying the URL determines crawl scope; it does not clarify whether a bare domain vs full URL behaves differently.

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 names a concrete action (fetch homepage plus internal pages) and enumerates the specific artifacts it produces: platform, consent banner vendor, tracking tools, drafted declaration, sitemap page count. That makes the tool's role immediately legible, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, check_install, which likely also inspects a site's consent state.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools (check_install, get_snippet, provision_site). An agent must infer from the verb that this is the broad discovery pass versus a targeted check, and nothing states prerequisites or exclusions.

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