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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that: it says it returns the deadline, the rule, the processor and individual-notification position, and the regulator's likely questions, and notes the controller decides whether to notify — a meaningful boundary on the tool's authority.

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-loads the core rule and is dense without waste; the legal disclaimer and jurisdictional framing earn their place. Slightly packed but well-structured.

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, no-output-schema tool it is largely complete: the description enumerates what it returns and frames the decision boundary. Lacks explicit routing to the sibling triage tool, which is the one residual gap.

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% with only two well-documented parameters (aware_at format/example, jurisdiction enum), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds the 72h/'as soon as possible' rules but no per-parameter detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete verb+resource — computes the deadline for notifying a personal data breach to the regulator — and even names the underlying rule per jurisdiction (Art. 33, FADP Art. 24). An agent can tell this is the deadline-calculation tool rather than a triage tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the content (compute notification timing), but it never states when to reach for this versus breach_triage or the DSAR tools, nor any preconditions. Adequate but with a clear gap on alternatives/differentiation.

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