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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: output is plain text in British English with [placeholders], dates are auto-filled when received_date is supplied, and the result is general information rather than legal advice.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler; the artifact and its scope come first, followed by behavior and the disclaimer. Slightly dense prose, but every clause carries information.

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 four parameters (two required), no output schema, and safety annotations already present, the description supplies what is missing: output style, placeholder convention, date-fill behavior, and the no-legal-advice caveat. Only edge behavior (invalid kind/jurisdiction combinations, what happens without received_date) is left implicit.

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% (kind lacks a schema description), and the description compensates by mapping each enum value to a concrete letter type and by explaining the interaction between received_date and date calculation. It does not mention the due_date override, which is only documented in 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?

Names a specific artifact (a plain-text letter template), the three letter kinds it produces (acknowledgement, extension, clarification) and the legal regimes covered, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbours such as dsar_quote or dsar_request_scoping, which prevents a 5.

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 implies the usage context (responding to a DSAR under UK/EU/CH law) and enumerates the scenarios via the kind values, but never states when-not to use it or names an alternative sibling tool. Guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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