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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds worthwhile context about requirements (subscription, API key) and regional awareness, but it does not describe the output format, side effects, or whether the generated documents are returned as text, files, or via links. This leaves a transparency gap.

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 concisely structured: the first sentence states the core action and scope, while the second adds essential requirements. It is front-loaded, avoids fluff, and includes a necessary link for API key acquisition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool that generates documents, the description omits what the output will be (e.g., generated text, files, links) and any notable side effects. It covers input prerequisites and regional scope, but with no output schema, the return value should be explicitly described. Overall, it is adequate but incomplete.

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 only 20% (only businessType has a description), and the description provides no parameter details. It does not explain the meaning or format of businessName, regions, websiteUrl, or contactEmail, nor that regions defaults to ['gdpr','ccpa']. The mention of region-aware standards partially hints at the regions parameter, but it is not mapped explicitly.

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 'Generate Privacy Policy, Terms of Service, and Cookie Policy' which specifies a specific resource and verb, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like generate_logo or generate_names. The regional scope (GDPR, CCPA, LGPD) further disambiguates the tool from generic document generators.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (for legal documents) and states explicit prerequisites (Founder sub or LEGAL_KIT purchase, API key). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling tools are clearly unrelated to legal docs, so confusion is unlikely.

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