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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context by noting the output includes 'live ADO score and link' and that results are 'curated from the Default Privacy directory'. This goes beyond the schema and reveals the source and freshness of the data. No contradictions with 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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clear usage clause. Every word adds value with no repetition of schema details or unnecessary fluff.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what it returns (alternatives with ADO score and link), the source (Default Privacy directory), and when to use it. The behavior is fully described without needing to explain return values in detail.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters, including examples and default value for limit. The description repeats the product examples but adds no new parameter-specific semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'return curated privacy-respecting alternatives' and explicitly names the resource (Default Privacy directory). It also provides concrete examples ('Google Analytics', 'Hotjar') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dp_search_tools or dp_compare_tools by focusing on alternatives for hostile products.

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 states 'Use when a user wants to replace a tracking or privacy-hostile tool', giving a clear context. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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