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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description's contribution is the two-mode contract and the answer payload (articles, detail, FADP/GDPR comparison table, templates, page link). It does not say whether answers are curated static content or why an unknown id fails, but it adds real context beyond the annotations.

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 trigger is front-loaded, but the single run-on sentence then recites ~40 topics that largely restate the enum values in prose, making it a wall of text rather than a structured list. The information is not wrong, but much of it duplicates structured data and would scan better as categories.

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 two-parameter, read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers trigger, mode switching, and the shape of the returned answer, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Only sibling routing and failure behavior on an unrecognized id are left implicit.

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 both enums are self-documenting, so the baseline is met; the description goes further by spelling out what omitting the optional id does versus supplying one, which the schema does not state. The lang parameter is left to the schema, which is acceptable given its enum and default.

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?

Names the exact resource (common questions on the Swiss FADP/nLPD/revDSG) and states both operating modes: a list when no id is given, a full answer when an id is given. The curated topic list makes the boundary versus siblings like fadp_obligations or which_laws_apply recognizable 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?

"Use when someone asks a common question on the Swiss FADP" is an explicit trigger, and the enumerated topics tell the agent which question types this tool covers. It never names an alternative tool or says when NOT to use it (e.g. versus fadp_obligations or assessment_questions), so routing is only partially resolved.

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