Privacy Policy URL

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful return behavior by naming the status values (active or not_found) and the liveUrl/updatedAt fields returned when live.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose followed by return details. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only existence check, the description covers the return shape despite no output schema, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is that the sole required input parameter is left unexplained.

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 schema has one required parameter, companySlug, with 0% description coverage. The description never explains what companySlug means, where to obtain it, or its expected format, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb and resource: 'Confirm whether a hosted privacy policy is live.' This clearly distinguishes the check operation from the sibling create_privacy_policy_url without needing to name it.

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 is used to verify liveness of a hosted policy, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and does not mention the create_privacy_policy_url alternative.

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

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

Annotations only flag idempotentHint=true; the description goes further by giving the 24-hour idempotency window and the same-inputs-or-key trigger, plus the distinct liveUrl/pendingUrl return branches and the $29/year price. This is exactly the kind of context beyond the annotation set that agents need.

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 tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, every sentence conveying distinct operational information (return artifacts, payment branch, idempotency). Slightly dense - a single sentence packs three separate outcomes - but no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned artifacts (liveUrl, pendingUrl) and the conditional payment path. It does not cover failure modes (e.g., invalid resourceType, checkout expiry) or how the human payment completes, leaving a small gap for a mutation tool with external side effects.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning to idempotencyKey (its retry semantics and default hashing) and to resourceType (free vs paid consequences) that the schema does not convey. Coverage of the boolean compliance flags and companySlug is left to the schema, which is reasonable.

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+resource ('Generate and host a privacy policy') and names the destination artifact ('stable HTTPS URL'). This clearly separates it from siblings check_privacy_policy_url (verification) and list_resource_types (enumeration).

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?

Explains the two operating paths - free/API-key holders get liveUrl immediately, others get a Stripe Checkout link requiring human payment - and describes repeat-call behavior. It gives clear context but does not explicitly say when to pick this over a sibling or what prerequisites exist for the Agent API key path.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and 'No side effects' largely restates that rather than adding new context. The description does disclose what the response contains (values plus their free-hosting status), which is useful given there is no output schema, but it adds little behavioral depth beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the payload and its qualifier. The trailing 'No side effects' is redundant against readOnlyHint, so it does not fully earn its place, but the overall size is appropriate.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return content, and it does so by naming the values and their free-hosting flag. It stops short of describing the response shape (list vs. map), which is a minor gap for such a simple 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 specific resource (the resourceType values accepted by create_privacy_policy_url) and an extra attribute (which are hosted free), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It ties itself to a sibling tool, aiding differentiation, though it states the action as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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?

Referencing create_privacy_policy_url implies this is used to discover valid values before invoking that tool, but the description never says when to call it or when not to. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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