Legal Verify

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the precise failure criteria (non-200 status, missing support email, placeholder present) and the supabase_url prerequisite. It stops short of describing failure/remediation behavior, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 tight, front-loaded segments (what / when / returns) with zero filler. A reader gets condition, prerequisite, and alternative routing in the first three sentences.

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, yet the description still restates the return shape, which is mildly redundant. Everything an agent needs to decide and invoke (timing, prerequisite, alternative, pass/fail criteria) is present, so the definition is complete despite that small overlap.

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?

Only one parameter (app_dir) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax or format detail for app_dir, so the baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the work.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it checks that deployed privacy/terms pages return 200 in each app language, contain the support email, and have no placeholders. It also names the sibling it is not (legal_check) and characterizes itself as live/read-only, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Explicit timing ('Use when: after backend_deploy'), a prerequisite ('Needs supabase_url in app outputs'), and a named alternative for the differing condition ('For offline checks use legal_check'). Nothing is left to inference.

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