Check Consent Mode

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is already covered by annotations. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool returns a 0-100 GDPR compliance score with detailed findings and clarifying that the operation is an audit rather than a modification. No side-effect claims are made, and none are needed.

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 with zero filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, the detailed checks are compactly listed, and the return value is stated in the final clause. It does not waste space repeating schema or annotation information.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explicitly states that a 0-100 compliance score and detailed findings are returned. Together with the fully documented input schema, this gives an agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both url and wait_ms. The description does not add parameter-specific detail, but none is required because the schema already documents the parameters adequately. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Audit') and precise resource ('Google Consent Mode v2 implementation and cookie compliance'), then enumerates the exact checks performed: CMP vendor detection, consent default/update configuration, IAB TCF API, GA4 gcs/gcd signals, and pre-consent cookie behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from generic tracking or GTM-related sibling tools.

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 makes the intended use case evident: consent-mode and cookie-compliance auditing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as when to prefer audit_tracking or check_gtm_snippet, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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