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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context the annotations cannot: the output is advisory only, the controller decides, it is not legal advice, and the tool must not be fed personal data. It stops short of describing return format or handling of edge cases.

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 core deliverable is front-loaded in the first sentence, with legal-source attribution and the input restriction following. It is dense but every sentence carries information; the framing clause naming both the ICO guide and EDPB Guidelines is slightly over-long for what it adds.

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 read-only, no-output-schema assessment tool this is complete: it says what it returns (likely/unlikely notification, the factors, the deadline), the jurisdictions covered, and the controller-decides caveat. No output schema means description must indicate the return shape, and it does.

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 description coverage is 100% across all seven required parameters, including worked examples and enum meanings, so the schema carries full semantic load. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond that, making the baseline 3 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 specific verb and resource (triage a personal data breach) plus the exact output shape: reportability view, the factors behind it, and the notification deadline. The jurisdictional scope (UK, EU/EEA, CH) and the governing frameworks are named. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling breach_clock, which likely also deals with notification timing.

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 (assess a breach you have just become aware of) but never stated as a condition, and no alternative or sibling tool is named — notably breach_clock, which overlaps on the deadline dimension. The 'do not pass names or personal data' restriction is a useful input constraint rather than a when-to-use rule.

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