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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds useful operational context — lookup is keyed strictly by slug and requires a discovery step for unknown terms — but says nothing about what the payload contains, which is acceptable given an output schema exists.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded and the when/when-not blocks are scannable. There is mild redundancy — the slug/discovery note appears in the opening paragraph and is partly restated in 'by slug' — but no sentence is wasted.

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 a single-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: trigger condition, exclusion, slug format, and the discovery path for unknown slugs. Nothing material is missing.

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 schema already supplies the slug pattern and examples, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes beyond it by clarifying the semantic role of the parameter (a slug, not a free-text term name) and by naming the sibling tool that produces valid slugs, which prevents the most likely invocation error.

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 ('Look up') and resource ('plain-language definition of a privacy or data-protection term') with concrete examples spanning Law 25, PIPEDA, and AI governance concepts. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like privacy_list_glossary_terms (enumeration) and privacy_search_enforcement_actions (fines/cases).

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' blocks name the exact trigger (a user asking what one term means, by slug) and route the enforcement/fine case to a named alternative. It also proactively points to privacy_list_glossary_terms for slug discovery, so the agent has a complete decision path.

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