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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the description's job is to add beyond them, and it does: it discloses that each record carries `sources` and `caveats`, and critically defines null semantics ('Default Privacy has not checked it — never read null as no'). That is a genuine misread-prevention rule an agent could not get from the schema or 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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope before the field list and the citation rule. Slightly packed, but every clause (field list, null rule, quoting/citing instruction) earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields plus the `sources`/`caveats` elements. Combined with the null-interpretation rule and the quoting/citation instruction, an agent has everything needed to call it and present results correctly.

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% and already states 2–5 slugs with an example. The description restates the 2–5 range but adds no slug syntax or resolution guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: 'Fetch the full Privacy Protocol records for 2–5 tools by slug for side-by-side comparison.' It also enumerates the return fields (DP pick, jurisdiction, encryption, PII requirements), which makes it clearly distinct from single-tool siblings like dp_get_tool and from dp_search_tools.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case: 'Use to help a user choose between shortlisted tools', which implies the tool is for post-search comparison rather than discovery. It stops short of naming alternatives like dp_get_tool or dp_find_alternatives, so the when-not guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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