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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The added sentence about host AI vendors seeing tool calls and results is genuinely useful contextual disclosure beyond annotations, but it is peripheral to how the tool itself behaves, and the return shape is covered by the output 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, with no filler. The second sentence sits slightly awkwardly next to the purpose statement but is brief and adds distinct 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 no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema documenting the return value, the description supplies everything an agent needs to select and call the tool. The only missing piece is explicit invocation guidance, which is minor given the tool's simplicity and singularity.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline for zero-param tools applies. Nothing in the description is needed to clarify inputs.

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 verb and resource ("Returns the Concierge privacy notice") that unambiguously identifies the tool. No sibling covers privacy notices, so differentiation is achieved implicitly by the unique subject matter rather than by explicit contrast.

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: an agent can infer the tool is for retrieving the privacy policy, but the description never states when to call it (e.g., on user request, before handling data) or when another tool would be more appropriate. No alternatives are named, though none of the siblings overlap meaningfully.

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