Generate Terms, Privacy Policy & store checklist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that documents are draft-level with a 'review-by-counsel banner' and explicitly states 'structured drafts, not legal advice,' which clarifies limitations. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond a simple 'generates docs'.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with clear outputs and a critical disclaimer. No unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool generates complex legal documents but has no output schema and missing parameter descriptions. The description does not explain the response format, success criteria, or how inputs map to outputs. For a tool with no output schema, more detail is needed.

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 only 25% (only 'governing_law' has a description). The description does not explain key parameters like 'project_dir', 'company_name', or 'contact_email'. It vaguely says 'from the project's actual data categories' but does not connect to parameters.

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 clearly states it generates a Terms of Service, Privacy Policy (GDPR/CCPA), and a compliance checklist from project data categories. The verb 'generate' and specific outputs distinguish it clearly from sibling tools like 'audit_compliance' or 'verify_assets'.

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?

The description implies the tool is used when legal documents are needed based on project data, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or when to use alternatives like 'audit_compliance'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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