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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond that: it mentions the tool returns a free preview, requires no API key, and personalizes with business name. It does not contradict annotations and adds useful behavioral context about being free and returning a ready-to-use disclosure.

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 description is compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds value: it explains what it checks, what it returns, and the free/no-key condition. No filler or redundancy.

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 adequately explains the return values (obligation, placement, disclosure sentence). It also covers the touchpoint categories and the personalization option. It does not detail the exact output structure, but for a read-only check tool this is sufficient. The context signals show no nested objects or output schema, so the description fills the gap well.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra semantics—it reinforces that businessName personalizes the output but does not provide syntax or format details beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('check'), a specific resource (Article 50 transparency rule for AI touchpoints), and enumerates the touchpoint categories it covers. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling info tool (ai-disclosure-kit__get_ai_disclosure_kit_info) by focusing on a concrete compliance check rather than general kit information.

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 clearly tells when to use the tool (when you need to check Article 50 applicability and get a sample notice for a touchpoint). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent would infer the correct context from the description alone.

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