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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful behavior: it returns metadata and links only, not full guide text, and points to the follow-up tool. It does not discuss pagination or result ordering, but the limit default is in the schema.

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 tight sentences: scope with examples first, filtering second, return shape and next step last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 appropriately states what comes back (metadata and links) and how to get the body content. Scope, filterability, return type, and follow-up path are all covered for a zero-required-parameter search tool.

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%, so the matching rules for query and the category examples are already fully documented in structured fields. The description only restates 'filter by category,' adding nothing beyond the schema. 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 (Search) plus a precisely scoped resource (Default Privacy's long-form privacy how-tos), reinforced by concrete content examples like GrapheneOS switching and data-broker removal. It also names dp_get_guide as the full-content sibling, so an agent can separate the two without opening either 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?

Gives a clear routing rule: this tool returns metadata and links, dp_get_guide fetches full content. It also states category filtering as a usage mode. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the broad dp_search sibling, which is the one remaining ambiguity an agent faces.

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