consent_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that VITNA evaluates and records but does not enforce, and it exposes the return shape. This goes beyond a simple 'check consent' statement and gives the agent realistic expectations about side effects and enforcement limits.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core use case, then the return contract, then the sibling-tool distinction, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: when to use it, what it returns, and that it does not enforce. It could specify what happens when no active consent exists, but the returned reason field and the agent's obligation to honor the determination are enough 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond restating 'data principal + purpose (and optional category)', while the schema already documents each parameter and the hashing behavior of principal_ref.

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: asking VITNA whether an active consent permits processing personal data for a given purpose. It also distinguishes itself from vitna_preflight by explicitly naming it as the alternative for dangerous technical actions, so an agent can tell the siblings apart.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: before processing personal data, for personal-data processing legality. It also provides a clear when-not-to-use case by pointing to vitna_preflight for shell/file/DB/network actions, which is exactly the kind of alternative routing an agent needs.

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