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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description's value-add is the data semantics: it defines the 'basis' values ('objection', 'notice', 'unstated'), discloses provenance (verbatim clause, source URL, date Xither read it), and notes the mirror site. It does not describe return shape or ordering, but the behavioral burden is well covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, with the caveat last. The long parenthetical defining the basis values is dense but each element earns its place; the only cost is a slightly run-on first sentence.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the fields an agent will get back, plus the negative case for unlisted vendors. Missing only mechanical details such as result size or ordering, which are minor for a static quote table.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about inputs because there are none to add, and it correctly implies a parameterless, whole-table read.

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 names a specific resource (sub-processor notice windows) and enumerates exactly what each record contains: day count, business-day qualifier, basis, verbatim clause, source URL, and read date. It is clearly distinguishable in substance from lookup_vendor or search_vendors, though it never names those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 largely implied: it is a zero-parameter full-table dump, and the closing line 'A vendor not listed has no window Xither could quote' sets a boundary on coverage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to lookup_vendor or search_vendors for an agent that wants one vendor's window.

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