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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false) but say nothing about gating. The description adds genuinely useful non-structured context: subscription/entitlement requirement, an external API-key dependency, and the region-sensitivity of the output. It stops short of saying what happens on a partial entitlement (e.g. does it paywall or error).

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?

Front-loaded with the deliverable, then region scope, then entitlement, then API key — a sensible priority order in three tight sentences. The bracketed API-key note reads slightly like an ad insertion but is operationally relevant.

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 5-parameter mutation-ish generation tool with no output schema and thin schema descriptions, this covers the essentials: what is produced, region awareness, and the two blocking prerequisites. Only the semantics of the optional websiteUrl/contactEmail parameters are left unaddressed, and those are largely self-describing.

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% (businessType alone). The description partially compensates by framing the 'regions' parameter with valid values (GDPR, CCPA, LGPD), which the schema does not enumerate despite the array item being a free string. It adds nothing for websiteUrl or contactEmail, leaving those unexplained in both places.

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 (Generate) and enumerates the exact artifacts produced (Privacy Policy, Terms of Service, Cookie Policy) for a clearly bounded subject (a business). This is unambiguous and trivially distinguishable from the naming/domain siblings like generate_names and buy_domain.

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?

It gives strong prerequisites — Founder sub or LEGAL_KIT purchase, plus a free namemy.app API key with a signup URL — which tells the agent when the call will fail. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any when-not condition, so usage is implied rather than directed.

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