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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses accepted input formats, the not_found status with a hint for missing guides, and that instructions are 'verified' and include what MPA does after authorization. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but the informational nature of the output makes that reasonably clear.

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 tight sentences front-load the core purpose and then cover accepted inputs and the not_found behavior without wasted words. Every sentence contributes necessary 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?

For a one-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description explains the main return content (instructions plus MPA actions), the accepted identifier formats, and the error case. Minor gaps remain around the exact structure of a successful response, but nothing critical is missing for invocation.

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%, and the broker parameter is already documented as accepting a slug, domain, alias, or URL. The description adds concrete examples (spokeo, spokeo.com) and reiterates the same semantics, but does not materially extend the schema's meaning.

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 and resource: retrieving step-by-step, verified opt-out instructions for a single people-search or data-broker site. The description also clarifies the scope ('one site') and adds the MPA post-authorization context, distinguishing it from broader sibling tools like list_opt_out_guides or search_privacy_library.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use it: when you have a known broker identifier—slug, domain, alias, or URL—and need instructions for that specific site. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the singular 'one site' scoping and accepted input formats make the intended use unambiguous.

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