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

The description adds value beyond annotations by stating it is 'read-only, instant' and that the answer matches documents LexVibe would produce. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. No contradictions. It does not discuss rate limits or other behaviors, but the added context is sufficient.

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 concise, using three sentences to convey all necessary information. It includes a clear example, and there is no redundant or extraneous text.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: frameworks, documents, cookie-consent regime, and GPC status. It also mentions it is read-only and instant, covering essential behavioral aspects for a query tool.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'markets'. The description adds meaning by explaining its purpose ('markets the product serves') and providing an example ('["eu", "us"]'). This adds context beyond the schema's own description.

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's function with specific verbs and resources: 'return every framework that applies, the documents it must publish, the strictest cookie-consent regime, and whether a universal opt-out signal has to be honoured.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'generate_policies' by noting it's the read-only version.

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 explicit usage guidance with an example: 'Use it to answer 'I sell to the EU and Texas — what do I need?'.' It also contrasts with generate_policies, indicating when to use this tool instead. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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