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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is 'stateless', 'records no decision', and 'leaves no dashboard timeline trace' – valuable side-effect information. However, it doesn't mention auth requirements, rate limits, or idempotency implications, which would have been useful. Still, for a simple generator, this is solid.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adding return formats and behavioral traits. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, output formats, and side effects. It doesn't explain the content of the notice or jurisdiction templating details, but that's likely outside the tool's interface. Overall, this is well-rounded for the given complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains the 'format' parameter by noting 'Returns markdown or JSON', which maps to the enum values. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the 'format' parameter controls the output, nor does it mention defaults or any additional semantics. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 'Generate the operator's jurisdiction-templated privacy notice' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling validation/classification tools and mentions return formats (markdown or JSON), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool (for generating privacy notices, not validation) but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It mentions 'stateless generator' as a characteristic but doesn't state when to prefer this over other tools. Sibling tools are clearly different, but no direct 'use this when' or 'instead of' language is present.

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