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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the tool is browser-based and uses a questionnaire, which gives some behavioral context, but it does not disclose auth requirements, data handling, output format, or whether any side effects occur beyond generation.

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 a single sentence with a parenthetical, front-loading the key information. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words.

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 simple tool with no input schema and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information about its purpose and process. It could mention more about the generated output's format, but given the simplicity, it is adequately 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description needs no parameter explanation. The schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%, meaning there is nothing to add. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 the tool creates terms of service and privacy policies from a questionnaire, specifying the exact resources (ToS and privacy policies) and distinguishing it from sibling tools like contract-generator or nda-generator. The 'Browser-based tool' note adds contextual clarity.

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 for generating legal policy documents but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like contract-generator or nda-generator. There is no exclusion guidance, but the questionnaire-based approach hints at interactive use.

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