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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them by describing the default payload shape (summary plus layers plus tools in setup order) and warning that full: true returns a long document.

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, no filler, and the most important information (what it does and the default return) is front-loaded. The mode options are compressed into one sentence without losing meaning.

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 steps up to describe return shape across all three modes, which is the critical gap for this tool. It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown slug or what valid section headings look like, but nothing needed to make a correct call is missing.

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, but the description goes further by explaining what each mode returns: default is summary plus layers, section returns why each tool and the tradeoffs, full returns the entire stack. It also clarifies slug provenance, which the schema only illustrates by example.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Fetch one privacy stack by slug") and immediately distinguishes itself from nearby list/search siblings by naming where slugs come from. An agent can tell this apart from dp_list_stacks, dp_search, or dp_get_tool without inspecting schemas.

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance: slugs come from dp_list_stacks or dp_search, and it names the two modes (section vs full) with a preference for section when full would be long. It stops short of stating exclusions explicitly, but the context for use is clear.

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