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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond those: counts-only output, no raw documents or private text, no provider side effects, required scope absent from default keys, and disabled Legal advice. This is exemplary behavioral 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 dense but not bloated, front-loading the purpose and then covering safety, scope, and content constraints. Each sentence adds a distinct constraint; the length is justified by the breadth of behavioral caveats, though it could be tightened slightly.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with a rich output schema, this description is complete. It explains what is returned, what is intentionally excluded, permission requirements, and side-effect guarantees, leaving no critical gap for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics the description must document. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies; no additional parameter guidance is needed.

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 ('Return') and resource ('the same private, counts-only review as the browser'), and enumerates the exact business domains covered. It also clarifies what Legal is not, distinguishing this overview from any legal-advice tool among 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?

The leading question 'What needs attention across my business?' clearly signals when this tool is appropriate. It does not name an explicit alternative, but the description's scope and exclusions give enough context for an agent to select it correctly.

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