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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so safety is covered. The description adds useful response behavior: the no-answers mode returns per-area checklist items with critical ones marked, and the answers mode returns a score, a compliance label, and the open items. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger and then the two call modes. No filler, no repetition of structured fields, and each sentence conveys a distinct actionable fact.

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 single read-only parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers both input patterns and what each returns, so an agent can call it correctly. Minor gaps remain: the score's scale and the set of possible compliance labels are unstated.

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 item-id map and the yes/partial/no enum are already documented, holding the baseline at 3. The description goes slightly further by explaining how the parameter drives the two output modes and that unanswered items are treated as gaps, which is behavioral meaning the schema does not convey.

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 states a specific verb and resource (check a cookie banner/consent for compliance) and pins the regulatory basis (ePrivacy Art. 5(3) and GDPR consent rules), which is far more informative than the title alone. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling cookie_consent_fix_plan, so sibling differentiation is only inferable from the name.

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 opens with an explicit trigger ('Use when someone asks whether their cookie banner or cookie consent is compliant in the EU') and distinguishes two invocation modes: call without answers to get the checklist, call with per-item answers to get a score. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g., vs. cookie_consent_fix_plan for remediation).

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