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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a dataset (not real-time), not legal advice, and includes a sector-level summary. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each essential: content overview, usage constraint, disclaimer. Front-loaded with the core payload description. No wasted words.

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?

The description fully covers what the tool returns (fields + summary), how to invoke it (at least one param), access restrictions, and a legal disclaimer. No output schema exists, but the description adequately describes the response.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by requiring at least one parameter ('Provide at least a jurisdiction or a sector'), which clarifies optionality beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool returns a 'penalty & enforcement dataset' with specific fields (monetary/other penalty, enforcing body, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like get_ai_obligations. The verb 'get' combined with the resource 'penalties' is precise.

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?

The instruction 'Provide at least a jurisdiction or a sector' gives clear usage guidance. It also notes the paid feature preview limitation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., when to use this vs get_ai_obligations).

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