legal_get_consent

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what authentication or capability is required, whether the configuration may be missing, or what the response contains beyond the generic term 'configuration'.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is succinct, though the extreme brevity leaves important usage and behavioral details unaddressed elsewhere.

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 simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description identifies the returned subject but not the return shape, error behavior, or relationship to sibling legal tools. With no annotations and no output schema, more context would help an agent avoid ambiguity.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema coverage, with the schema itself describing site as 'Site id (see list_sites)'. The description adds no additional meaning, format, or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specific verb-object pair: retrieving the cookie consent banner configuration. That is clear enough to distinguish it from generic getters like wp_get_settings, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling legal_get_settings or legal_put_consent.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool, required permissions, or alternatives. The description simply states the outcome and leaves the agent to infer that a site id must be passed and that legal_get_settings or legal_put_consent are related.

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