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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behaviour: the use_case text is not stored or returned, output is 'Findings with sources', and it is general information rather than legal advice — all useful disclosure an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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-loaded with the action ('Screens a planned use of an AI tool') before the dense framework citations, and the three trailing short sentences handle privacy, output, and the disclaimer separately. The parenthetical legal citations are heavy but earn their place for an auditability tool.

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 8 required parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the load — and it does, naming the frameworks checked, the output shape ('Findings with sources'), and the privacy handling. Only minor gap is that it doesn't hint at how the eight boolean inputs combine to drive a finding.

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 75%, above the threshold where the schema carries most per-parameter meaning (booleans flagged via the WP248 criteria are self-explanatory). The description ties the inputs conceptually to the frameworks but adds no per-field syntax or interpretation beyond what the schema states.

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 verb ('screens') and a precise resource ('a planned use of an AI tool'), then enumerates the exact regimes covered (DPIA, EU AI Act risk flags, automated decision rules). No sibling tool (breach_*, dsar_*, hr_retention) overlaps, so an agent can select this unambiguously.

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 description makes the applicable context clear: a planned (pre-deployment) AI tool use, scoped by jurisdiction UK/EU/CH. It does not name when NOT to use it or point to any alternative, but no sibling covers this territory, so no exclusion is needed.

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