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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to state it's read-only. It adds value by clarifying the scope ('All 50 states and DC') and the non-legal nature ('General information, not legal advice'). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose (consent requirement) and then lists secondary contents (statute, note, notices). It wastes no words and is easy to scan.

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 read-only reference tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what data is returned (consent rule, statute, notice templates), the scope (all states+DC), and a cautionary note (not legal advice). It does not detail the output format, but given the low complexity, this is sufficient.

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%: all parameters (state, rep, dealership) already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides consent rules (one-party vs. all-party), the relevant statute, a dealership-specific note, and sample notices for a given US state. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like answer_recording_question, which answers questions, or ai_caller_disclosure, which likely provides disclosure scripts.

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 you need state-specific consent laws and notices) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like answer_recording_question. It provides context like 'for dealerships' but no exclusions or explicit routing guidance.

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