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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating that the data is public, needs no account, and is the same text an anonymous visitor sees. This clarifies access and provenance without contradicting the annotations.

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 a bit longer than average, but every sentence earns its place: the first enumerates the returned content, and the second provides rationale and usage guidance. The key information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by itemizing the returned fields, explaining the public access, and giving examples of when to call it. For a simple, parameterless, read-only tool, nothing important is missing.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces that no input is needed and that the data is publicly available, which is useful because the schema's empty properties object conveys only the absence of parameters.

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 clearly names the resource ('the service's legal identity') and enumerates the exact contents: entity, registration, emails, postal address, terms date, and minimum age. It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly name another tool to compare against.

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 gives concrete use cases: building a footer, quoting the contact address, or answering age questions, and says to read this instead of hard-coding a copy. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name an alternative sibling tool, so it lacks the full 'when-not/alternatives' guidance.

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