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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the waterfall strategy (robots.txt, sitemap.xml, page scrape), the fallback ordering, and the return shape. The agent knows exactly what will happen and what kind of result to expect, including the source, link_text, steps_tried, and success fields.

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 well-organized with a clear one-line summary, numbered waterfall steps, and labeled sections for use, when-to-use, returns, and example. It is somewhat long and has mild redundancy between 'USE FOR' and 'WHEN TO USE', but every major section contributes useful information.

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 having no output-schema annotation, the description includes a concrete RETURNS example covering privacy_url, source, link_text, steps_tried, and success. It also explains the multi-step behavioral flow and connects to create_update_offer, making the tool effectively self-contained for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the domain parameter. The description adds an example call and reinforces 'any domain' but does not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Locate the privacy-policy URL for a given website domain.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like find_offer_url by emphasizing the privacy-policy target, and the 'USE FOR' section reinforces this exact purpose without ambiguity.

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 gives rich, explicit when-to-use guidance: before creating Lead Gen offers, to auto-populate privacyUrl in create_update_offer, for GDPR/CCPA checks, and for any domain lookup. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements or named alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5 but is far above merely implied usage.

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