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

The annotations already declare a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds useful scope context beyond that: the law has been in force since 1 September 2023, the output is a summary, and it is explicitly not legal advice.

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 description is four short sentences, front-loads the use case, then names the alternative and adds the legal-advice caveat. Every sentence contributes without repetition.

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 simple, annotation-rich, zero-required-parameter overview tool with no output schema, the description gives enough content scope and routing guidance. A little more detail on the output shape would make it fully complete, but nothing critical 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?

There is one optional lang parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add anything about the parameter, so the schema fully carries that burden and the baseline score of 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?

The description states precisely what the tool provides: an overview of Swiss FADP duties for SMEs, including applicability, risk, eight duties, and article references. It explicitly distinguishes itself from action_plan, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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 says to use this for an overview and explicitly routes organisation-specific obligations to action_plan. That is clear positive and alternative guidance, though it does not address other siblings such as assessment_questions, fadp_questions, or which_laws_apply.

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