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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive lookup with no open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context about what the checklist covers and how category filtering works, without contradicting annotations. It could mention freshness or static-reference nature, but it is otherwise transparent.

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 key purpose is front-loaded and the description is reasonably sized. However, the later 'Use when' sentence partially repeats the earlier sentence about what Law 25 requires, adding mild redundancy.

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?

Given the read-only reference nature, full parameter schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description supplies enough context for an agent to call it correctly. It covers scope, filtering, and exclusions.

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%, and the single optional category parameter is fully documented with an enum and description. The description gives examples like 'Consent' and 'Incident response' and says omit for the full checklist, but this largely repeats the schema's own description rather than adding new semantics.

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 and resource: get the Quebec Law 25 compliance checklist. It enumerates the substantive coverage areas and distinguishes it from federal PIPEDA or case-specific queries, so an agent can identify it without opening the 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?

Explicitly provides both when to use it and when not to use it, including the optional category-filtering scenario. The alternative-boundary language about PIPEDA terms or cases alone is clear.

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