RegSentry Website Tracking Inspector

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is fully consistent with them. It adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing that the output is 'deterministic' and sourced from 'maintained playbooks,' and by explicitly stating that it does not verify live fixes — meaning the result reflects static guidance rather than current site state. No contradiction.

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 sentences totaling roughly 30 words: the first states the core behavior and the second states scope exclusions. Nothing is redundant with the annotations or schema, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 lookup tool, the description covers purpose, determinism, data source, and non-effects, and the presence of an output schema relieves it of explaining return structure. The clear gaps are the semantics of the 'tracker' parameter (0% schema coverage) and the absence of explicit guidance for choosing between this tool and its siblings. It is adequate but not complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the 'tracker' property carries only type, regex pattern, and length bounds with no semantic description. The tool description contributes only the word 'tracker-specific,' implying the parameter identifies a tracker, but never states whether that should be a domain, vendor name, ID, or URL, and gives no examples. With coverage at 0%, the description was expected to compensate and largely does not.

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 verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('deterministic, tracker-specific consent-gating guidance from RegSentry's maintained playbooks'). The negative scope statements ('does not change a website, contact a vendor, or verify that a fix was implemented') distinguish it from what an action-oriented remediation tool would do, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like inspect_site_tracking and interpret_consent_evidence. This is a specific, non-tautological purpose statement.

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 second sentence gives explicit exclusionary guidance: this tool performs a pure lookup and will not modify a website, contact a vendor, or verify implementation, so an agent knows not to select it for execution or verification tasks. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives for those cases, so routing is bounded but not fully directive.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: it does NOT run JavaScript, submit forms, create a RegSentry record, or make legal determinations, and it explicitly notes 'runtime-verification gaps' — meaningful caveats about what the fetch will and won't reveal.

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 tight sentences: the first states what it does, the second lists what it deliberately does not do. Front-loaded with the positive capability, no redundant text.

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?

Complete enough for a 2-param, read-only fetch tool with an output schema present (return values need not be described). The negative-capability list closes the biggest behavioral gaps. The only missing element is explicit routing relative to sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters including the authorization const and domain format. The description adds only the 'authorized public domain' framing, which is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('bounded, non-persisting GET of an authorized public domain's homepage') and enumerates exactly what is reported (tracker markup, consent setup signals, runtime-verification gaps). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling tools, which are about remediation and consent-evidence interpretation rather than direct fetching.

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 scope via the authorization requirement and the negative list, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus interpret_consent_evidence or get_remediation_playbook. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use routing is provided.

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond this by adding determinism, statelessness ('computes from supplied data only, stores nothing'), and a clear non-legal scope disclaimer. These are valuable behavioral insights not present in 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence immediately states the core purpose and determinism, and the second sentence adds behavioral guarantees without filler. Every clause contributes useful information.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, clear annotations, and only three self-named parameters, the description covers behavior and scope fairly completely. The main gaps are parameter-level explanations and sibling routing, but these are partially compensated by the schema's structure and the tool's focused purpose.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It loosely contextualizes observations via 'tracker-request observations' and 'consent phase', but it leaves 'domain' and 'consentBannerPresent' unexplained, and provides no hints about nested fields like requestCount or typedValueTransmitted.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('grades') and resource ('tracker-request observations'), and specifies the criterion ('by consent phase'). It also clarifies deterministic behavior and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like inspect_site_tracking and get_remediation_playbook by focusing on grading rather than inspection or remediation.

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 usage when consent-phase grading of tracker observations is needed, and adds a useful exclusion: it returns a technical, not legal, interpretation. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide alternative routing guidance.

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