legal_consent_log_get

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the required capability (manage_options), the default-off logging state that gates whether any data exists, the dependency on legal_put_consent's log_enabled flag, and a version requirement (cvrt-legal 0.5.0+). It does not describe return shape or pagination, but the behavioral gating context is unusually rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource before the prerequisites. Dense but every sentence earns its place; the version note at the end is a minor trailing detail rather than filler.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, who can call it, and the configuration state that must precede it. It stops short of describing the returned record's fields or pagination behavior, which an agent might want for a log-listing tool, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description reinforces that consent_id is a per-visitor banner identifier, but adds little beyond the schema's own 'The consent_id the banner generated for one visitor' and does not explain 'site' or format expectations.

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 ('Get') and resource ('every logged consent decision') scoped to a single consent_id, and the parenthetical clarifies exactly what the data represents ('the banner's own record of what it asked and what the visitor chose'). An agent can distinguish this per-visitor lookup from siblings like legal_consent_log_export (bulk) and legal_consent_log_stats (aggregate) without opening a schema.

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?

Provides clear preconditions: requires manage_options, logging must be enabled via legal_put_consent's log_enabled, and the Datenschutz document should carry an 'einwilligungsnachweis' section first. This implicitly warns that the tool returns nothing until logging is on, which is valuable routing context, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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