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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the output (ranked list of regulations, risk indicator) and the 'may apply' nuance, indicating a non-exhaustive heuristic. This aligns with annotations and adds transparency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then examples, then positioning. No redundant 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 tool has 3 params, no output schema. The description provides sufficient context about inputs (natural language action), outputs (ranked list + risk indicator), and usage domain. It could detail the output structure more, but for a read-only compliance check, this is adequate.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description enhances the 'action' parameter with concrete examples (EU biometric data, health records transfer, trading model) that teach the agent how to phrase queries. Limit and jurisdiction are already well-documented in 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's function: a pre-flight regulatory check that takes natural-language action descriptions and returns ranked regulations with a risk indicator. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being 'the primary tool for runtime compliance gating'.

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 explicitly frames when to use: before performing an action, as a pre-flight check, and positions itself as the primary tool for runtime compliance gating in autonomous workflows. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the context is strong.

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