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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that the tool has no side effects. The description adds behavioral context by defining the result as an observation rather than a compliance verdict and by specifying the categories of data included, which helps the agent anticipate what the response represents.

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 deliver maximum signal: the first states the action and result contents, the second clarifies the semantic boundary. Every phrase earns its place and the key scope 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 read-only retrieval tool with one clearly documented parameter, no output schema, and no nested complexity, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It explains the return substance and the important interpretation caveat without demanding extra context.

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%, with monitor_id fully documented as the UUID of the monitor to fetch data for. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the schema carries the explanatory burden and the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('latest Consent Scan result for a monitor'), and summarizes what the result contains: cookies before/after consent and open trackers as Findings. It also explicitly disclaims being a compliance verdict, which sets accurate expectations and prevents confusion with compliance-related tools.

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 clearly signals when to use the tool: whenever the latest Consent Scan observation for a specific monitor is needed. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool appears to compete for this responsibility, so the implicit usage context is sufficient.

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