privacy_notice_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses output formats, the placeholder-vs-real-value behavior under API key vs owner auth, and explicitly declares the tool stateless with no recorded decision or dashboard timeline trace. It omits permission requirements and rate limits, so it falls short of exhaustive.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the format and auth details. Every sentence carries information; no filler or restatement of the name.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return type, auth-dependent output content, and side-effect profile. What 'jurisdiction-templated' legally entails is left implicit, but for a single-parameter generator this is close to complete.

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 does partly by naming the two output forms ('markdown or JSON') that map to the format enum, but it adds no syntax, default, or behavioral detail (e.g. what happens when format is omitted). With only one self-evident enum parameter, this is the minimum viable baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Generate the operator's jurisdiction-templated privacy notice.' It is clearly distinguishable from the validator/classifier siblings (aadhaar_mask, breach_classify, etc.), none of which produce notices. Minor friction: the name says 'get' while the description says 'Generate', but the resource and output are 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?

It explains the two calling contexts (API key yields placeholders; signed-in owner gets real values), which is real situational guidance, but it never states when to reach for this versus another tool or any prerequisite beyond auth mode. Usage is implied rather than explicitly scoped.

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