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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly and idempotent. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: results are 'derived from the answers given' and any purchased pack is generated from the business's declared circumstances 'rather than a generic template.' This clarifies the deterministic, input-driven nature of the tool.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first defines what the tool does, the second clarifies behavior and downstream implications, and the third gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the tool's main purpose and avoids redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, inputs at a category level, output, and usage context, which is sufficient given 100% schema coverage and no output schema. It could have sketched the response format, but the key decision-relevant information is present.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds useful categorization—AI use, size, sector, and data handling—but does not provide additional semantics for individual parameters beyond what the schema supplies.

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 and resource: 'Runs Clausely's compliance risk check for a UK business.' It clearly states the output—which obligations apply under EU AI Act, Worker Protection Act 2024, and UK GDPR, plus a matching pack—and is distinct from sibling tools that fetch articles or list packs.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when someone wants to know whether a regulation applies to their specific business rather than reading general guidance.' This gives a clear decision rule, though it does not name the specific sibling tool or content type to use instead.

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