Generate Disclaimer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It goes beyond a generic 'generates' statement by revealing that the result is a 25-line preview, that a documentId is returned, and that the full document is unlocked only via a one-time $9.99 license with no subscription. This is critical behavioral context for an agent deciding whether to call the tool and how to handle the incomplete output. It does not cover rate limits or data handling, but for a document generator the paywall mechanism is the key behavior.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, the document types, and the target context (website/app and privacypage.io). The second sentence precisely states the output and the pricing model. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description explains the essential output contract: a free 25-line preview, a documentId, and a paid unlock for the full document. The sibling get_full_document likely consumes the documentId, completing the workflow. It does not explain what the agent should do with the documentId or how to present the preview, but those are minor given the schema and sibling context. Missing details like authentication or rate limits are not critical for a non-destructive generation tool.

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 input schema already includes descriptions for all 5 parameters, achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-specific explanation; it merely lists the disclaimer types that are already captured in the enum. It does not say which fields are required or how values should be formatted, but the schema already covers that ground.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Generate') and a precise resource ('a liability disclaimer') with the six allowed types explicitly named. It also differentiates the tool from its sibling generators (privacy policy, terms, EULA, cookie policy) by identifying both the document type and the privacypage.io service. An agent can clearly tell what this tool produces and how it differs from the siblings.

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 clearly states what the tool does but does not explicitly say 'use this when...' or name the alternatives as exclusions. Still, the document-type scoping and the sibling list make the intended use case unambiguous: generate a disclaimer when that is the needed legal document. There is no explicit when-not guidance, preventing a 5.

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