Scan Privacy Policy

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the authorization and defensive-use constraints, which is real context an agent needs. However, it says nothing about whether the tool performs live network fetches, what it checks, or side effects — gaps that matter for an unannotated tool.

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?

Three of the four sentences restate the same ownership/authorization requirement almost verbatim, adding no new information. The one substantive sentence about purpose is front-loaded, but the redundant tail wastes attention.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a single-parameter audit tool with no annotations, the description covers scope and permission but is thin on what the audit actually evaluates and how the target is fetched, leaving the agent with limited expectations.

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?

There is a single 'url' parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'websites, endpoints, or local projects' hints that the value may be a URL or a local path, which adds some meaning. It does not specify expected URL format, scheme, or whether a bare domain is acceptable.

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 names a concrete verb and resource: 'Audit website privacy policy for technical transparency and data subject rights.' That distinguishes it from siblings such as detect_cookie_consent and find_personal_data_forms, which target different artifacts. It stops short of explicitly saying how it relates to run_full_audit or generate_gap_report.

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 only usage guidance is an authorization constraint ('use only on sites/projects you own or are authorised to audit'), which tells the agent the permitted scope but not when to pick this tool over the sibling scanners. There is no mention of prerequisite steps or exclusions relative to run_full_audit.

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