cookieguard_explain

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: 'Static text only; no network or cookie data' tells the agent this cannot probe a live site, and 'what it means, when it is confirmed versus review' previews the answer shape. What is missing is the failure mode for an unrecognized ID.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering scope, accepted inputs, answer content, and the static/no-data constraint. There is no filler and nothing buried after the useful part.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema that documents return values, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly. Only the unknown-ID behavior is left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented with examples, so the baseline is a 3. The description earns a step up by classifying the otherwise loose 'id' string into four semantic families (rule ID, incomplete reason, error code, status), which tells the agent what kinds of tokens are legal.

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 and resource ('Explain a CookieGuard rule ID') and enumerates the accepted ID classes (CG001-CG009, incomplete reason, error code, status). It never names a sibling, but 'Static text only; no network or cookie data' implicitly separates it from the executable tools cookieguard_scan/audit/policy.

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?

Use is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer 'call this when you have an ID and need its meaning.' The clauses about 'confirmed versus review' and 'how to fix it' describe the content of the answer, not when to choose this tool over a sibling, and no exclusion or prerequisite is given.

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