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.