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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior annotations cannot express: AND semantics across keywords, filler-word stripping, per-type result caps, and the exact fields returned (type, title, slug, one-line summary, Default Privacy url). With no output schema, that return-shape disclosure is genuinely load-bearing.

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 routing instruction and core semantics are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The final sentence is dense — it carries both the return-field list and a five-way sibling handoff — which is packed but every clause does work. Slightly long for a single paragraph, but no filler.

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 two-parameter search with no output schema, the definition covers invocation semantics, result shape, and routing to every relevant sibling. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and to interpret what comes back.

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 adds real meaning: every keyword must match, filler words like 'how'/'best'/'private' are ignored, and 'top few results of each type' clarifies that limit is applied per result type rather than globally. Only the limit bounds are left to the schema, which already handles them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: one keyword search across the whole hub, covering checked answers, directory tools, guides, stacks and glossary. It explicitly enumerates what it searches and names the type-specific siblings it is not (dp_search_tools, dp_get_tool, etc.), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Opens with 'Start here for a general privacy question', an explicit entry-point condition. It then names each alternative and the condition that selects it: dp_search_tools for filters, dp_get_* for full content, dp_find_alternatives for replacing a named product. When and when-not are both covered.

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