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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does by disclosing that results are flagged statutory vs recommended, that sources are attributed (HMRC, RIDDOR 2013, Limitation Act 1980, etc.), and by adding an explicit 'general information, not legal advice' disclaimer. No return format or pagination detail is given, but for a static lookup that is a minor gap.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: the core behavior first, scope second, disclaimer last. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of explaining the return contents (period, statutory vs recommended, source), which is the key information an agent needs. It is nearly complete; only the granularity of the response (one record type per call) 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It partially does by clarifying jurisdiction ('UK only for now'), which matches the single-value enum, but it says nothing about record_type beyond the enum's self-explanatory values. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the enums are largely self-documenting.

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 states a specific resource and enumerates exactly what is returned: a retention period, whether it is statutory or only recommended, and the source it derives from. It also bounds scope with 'UK only for now', so an agent can tell immediately this is a read-only reference lookup with no counterpart among the DSAR/breach siblings.

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 only implied by the purpose and the 'UK only for now' constraint. There is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, no mention of calling it repeatedly per record type, and no statement of what to do when the requested jurisdiction or record type is out of scope. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer applicability.

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