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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and a closed domain, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the data is sourced from public research, it is explicitly not legal advice, and omitting the parameter switches the tool into a listing mode. These are useful behavioral disclosures the annotations do not carry.

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 domain and immediate examples of what is returned, followed by a short caveat and fallback sentence. Every clause carries information, though the long parenthetical vendor list makes the first sentence dense.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey returns, and it does: export feasibility, API training terms, rights-risk assessment, and quoted clauses. Combined with annotations that cover safety, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the concrete response shape is left unspecified.

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 100%, so the single optional `system` parameter is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying the behavior when the parameter is omitted (returns the systems on file), which is genuinely useful for an optional parameter.

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 names the resource (a business system such as Slack, Zendesk) and enumerates exactly what the tool surfaces: export rights, vendor API terms on training AI, a rights-risk reading, and verbatim clauses. It is far more specific than the name alone, though it reads as a list of return facts rather than a crisp verb+resource, and no sibling overlaps this domain so differentiation is implicit.

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?

It gives clear context for invocation and an explicit conditional fallback: 'Without `system`, lists the systems on file.' It also frames the tool as 'Research from public sources, not legal advice,' which sets expectations. No alternatives are named, but none of the siblings compete, so exclusion guidance is unnecessary.

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