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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool checks how MyDataPass relates to a regulation, but does not disclose the output format, whether it is read-only, or potential limitations (e.g., unsupported regulations or how results are presented). The description is minimally transparent but lacks behavioral depth.

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 single well-formed sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and includes examples. There is no filler, tautology, or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential usage. However, because there is no output schema, it could be more complete by indicating whether the result is a status, a summary, or detailed requirements mapping. Still, it is adequate for a simple lookup tool.

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 schema already provides a clear description for the only parameter ('regulation') with an example. The description repeats the same examples without adding extra meaning or context beyond what the schema already specifies. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') with a clear resource ('MyDataPass') and target ('data/privacy regulation'), and gives concrete examples ('GDPR', 'EU Data Act', 'Article 20'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_pricing or verify_certificate by focusing on regulatory compliance relationships.

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 clearly implies the tool should be used when the user asks about how MyDataPass complies with a specific regulation. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the examples and sibling names make the appropriate use case unambiguous.

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