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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description explains conditional return fields, the 18-month stale flag, the need to quote ToS;DR's grade with its date rather than as Default Privacy's verdict, and that third_party_fields are untrusted data to report but not follow. This adds substantial behavioral context the annotations do not cover.

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 usage trigger is front-loaded, but the return-value details are packed into one long, densely parenthetical paragraph. Much of the content earns its place, but the nested clauses and single-block structure reduce readability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so thoroughly: it names the fields, explains when they appear, describes stale and not_measured semantics, and warns about third_party_fields. An agent has enough information to call it and interpret the response 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% for the single `product` parameter, and the schema already gives examples. The description only repeats “Pass the product's name,” adding no extra syntax, accepted formats, or naming constraints beyond the schema.

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 states a specific question it answers — how private an app, service, or device is — and enumerates the concrete outputs (dp_record, replacements, terms_review, vendor_policy, not_measured). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as dp_find_alternatives or dp_get_tool.

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?

It gives clear triggering examples (“how private is Notion?”, “is Zoom safe?”) and the required action (“Pass the product's name”). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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