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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behaviour, so the description's extra value is the output shape (six stages, each with article citations, weight, rationale, template link) and the filtering rule that answered steps are omitted. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though response format details like ordering guarantees or volume are left implicit.

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-loads the usage trigger, then describes the output in one compact sentence. The second sentence is dense and run-on but every clause conveys real information about what the plan contains.

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?

With no output schema and seven parameters including a nested answers object, the description does the heavy lifting by explaining the staged output and the filtering of completed steps, which is enough for correct invocation. Minor gaps around result size or ordering keep it from 5.

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 every parameter is already documented, and the description largely restates that answered yes/na steps are excluded — information the 'answers' property already carries. It adds marginal value over the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 outcome — a stage-ordered action plan of applicable FADP/GDPR/AI Act steps with articles, weight, rationale and templates — and implicitly distinguishes itself from which_laws_apply and assessment_questions by producing a tailored plan rather than a law list or question set. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a clean 5.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use when someone asks what their organisation must do about data protection, or how to start') and tells the agent to feed in answers from assessment_questions so completed steps are dropped. No explicit exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance, which keeps it at 4.

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