privacy_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses pricing ($0.015 USDC/call), latency (p99 25000ms), billing behavior ('not charged when the page cannot be loaded'), that it returns a graded result with findings by severity, and it issues a 'not legal advice' caveat. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a check 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and then logically sequenced (what is checked → imprint fields → return format → audience → disclaimers → cost/latency). It is dense and long, but nearly every clause conveys actionable detail rather than filler, so it stays efficient despite its length.

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?

Complex tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description explains inputs implicitly, the full inspection scope, the return shape (A–F grade with severity-ranked findings), cost, latency, and billing edge behavior. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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 'url' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with an example, and the description adds nothing beyond restating that a website is checked. Baseline 3 for a fully-specified single-parameter schema.

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+resource (GDPR and imprint check of a website) and precisely enumerates the scope: third parties loading before consent, cookies/tracking cookies, consent banner and reject button, and imprint fields per § 5 DDG / AT / CH. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like domain_compliance, site_audit, seo_meta or accessibility_check.

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?

Names the target audience (agencies, compliance teams, lead qualification) and the inspecting stance ('first-time visitor who has not clicked anything'), which frames when the tool is relevant. It does not explicitly contrast against alternatives such as domain_compliance or site_audit, nor state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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