Generate legal & compliance documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose side effects. It clearly says the agent should 'Write the returned documents into the app as /privacy, /terms (and /cookies) pages and implement the compliance checklist items,' which implies modifying the app. It also includes an important disclaimer that these are templates, not legal advice. However, it doesn't detail permissions or potential irreversible changes.

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 and front-loaded with the core function, followed by operational instructions. Each sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy. It could be slightly more compact, but the structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (10 params, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: what it generates, that it writes to the app, and the need to ask for inputs. It lacks detail on the return format (e.g., whether documents are returned as files or text) and edge cases, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 low (40%), so the description must compensate. It highlights 'regions' and 'dataCollected' as key inputs, noting the region-aware nature of the output. However, it doesn't explain other parameters like usesCookies, usesPayments, usesAnalytics, or childrenUnder13, leaving ambiguity. The description adds some value but not enough to fully bridge the coverage gap.

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 with a specific verb ('Generates') and resource ('legal document templates') plus a compliance checklist. It lists concrete document types (Privacy Policy, Terms of Service, Cookie Policy) and regulations (GDPR, CCPA/CPRA, DPDP, COPPA, PCI-DSS), making it distinct from all sibling tools like generate_blueprint.

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 actionable usage guidance: 'Ask the USER for the inputs first - especially regions and what personal data the app collects.' It also states what to do after generation (write documents into the app, implement checklist). It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear and specific.

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