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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by naming the covered regulators, noting results carry plain-language summaries, penalties and official source links, and explaining the follow-up call pattern. It stops short of stating data coverage limits (earliest available year, how complete each regulator's corpus is) or result-count/pagination behavior, which are the remaining unknowns for a search tool.

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 resource definition, then examples, then return shape, then routing — a sensible order with no filler. The 'Use when' line partially restates the opening paragraph's list of triggers ('fines, enforcement cases'), a small redundancy, but the structure remains scannable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still summarizes them usefully and names the natural follow-up tool. What's missing for a search tool of this complexity is behavior on empty result sets and whether paging totals are exposed; the schema's offset description covers paging mechanics, so the gap is minor rather than disqualifying.

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% and each parameter is documented in-schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds example query strings that illustrate free-text usage, but it never mentions the year or regulator filters, which are the two parameters most likely to change agent behavior; notably the schema's year bounds (minimum 2000, maximum 1970) are self-contradictory and the description offers no compensating guidance.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (verified Canadian privacy enforcement actions) and scopes it precisely to CAI orders under Quebec Law 25 and OPC findings under PIPEDA. It explicitly positions itself as the entry point versus the sibling privacy_get_enforcement_case, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Contains explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections, gives concrete trigger questions ('Has the CAI fined anyone for facial recognition?'), and routes the agent elsewhere for terminology lookups. It also states the two-step workflow: search here for a case ID, then call privacy_get_enforcement_case for details.

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