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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return shape: verbatim passages, each carrying current legal status (in force, applicable from a date, amended) and an official link — context an agent cannot get from 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, verb first and return contract second. The long parenthetical corpus list is dense but every element is substantive rather than padding.

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 reasonably (passages, status, links). It omits result limits, ranking/pagination behavior, and how multiple statuses are surfaced, which are minor gaps for a retrieval tool with a fully documented schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by spelling out that national-law coverage for the country parameter includes authority guidance and decisions, clarifying what including a country actually adds to the result set.

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 verb (searches) and resource (official EU/national data protection texts) and enumerates the corpora covered (GDPR, ePrivacy, AI Act, EDPB guidance, CJEU case law, national law). This clearly separates it from record-oriented siblings such as list_processing_records or report_breach, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 only implied: the 'question' parameter signals a research/retrieval task and the country note hints at scoping, but there is no statement of when to reach for search_law versus gdpr_obligations or prepare_analysis, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the routing.

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