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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description additionally discloses the return shape ('structured enforcement events with fines, violations, and source citations'), which is valuable because there is no output schema. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with no filler; the first sentence front-loads the verb and resource, and the second concisely covers filters and return content. Every clause contributes useful signal.

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 an optional-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, key filters, and return contents, while the schema covers parameter constraints. Minor gaps include ordering/pagination behavior and how filters combine, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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 the schema already documents every parameter, including examples and formats. The description summarizes the filter categories but does not add meaning beyond the schema in terms of syntax, allowed values, or format.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('privacy and regulatory enforcement actions'), and enumerates the filter dimensions, making the tool's basic purpose clear. It is implicitly distinct from siblings like get_enforcement_details and get_enforcement_stats (list vs. details/stats), but it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 gives direct usage context: 'Search privacy and regulatory enforcement actions' and lists the available filters, so an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or routing to siblings such as get_enforcement_details, which would be needed for full differentiation.

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