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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it is 'general information, not legal advice' and it 'stores nothing', which tells the agent how to frame and caveat the output rather than presenting it as a legal opinion.

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 the return value, and the enumeration in the first sentence earns its length because there is no output schema to reveal the checklist's contents. Slightly dense but no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches what the checklist contains and adds the legal-advice disclaimer an agent needs in order to relay results responsibly. It does not explain how the five optional parameters vary the output, a minor gap for a six-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only one small link — that the returned privacy laws are keyed to 'the selected data types' — but says nothing about how hq_region, sells_to, contains_personal_info or contains_health_info shape the checklist.

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 and resource — 'Returns a step-by-step checklist' — and enumerates the checklist's scope (ownership/contracts, privacy policy, de-identification, vendor terms, provenance, permitted uses, applicable privacy laws). That is far more specific than the title. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from siblings like check_data_readiness or explain_data_licensing_term, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Use when someone asks what permissions, consents or legal checks they need before selling or licensing business data' gives a clear triggering context. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to the sibling tools (readiness check, term explainer, disclosure list) that an agent might confuse with this one.

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