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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this by saying 'Public and read-only; discloses, does not gate.' It adds extra context about the nature of the instruments (terms agents operate under) and the markdown output format, which is useful beyond 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?

The description is concise and well-structured, starting with the primary purpose, then the instrument list, operational context, and a usage example. No redundant sentences; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the single parameter with full enum coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (raw markdown) and provides an example call. It is complete for a read-only retrieval 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 coverage is 100%, and the description explicitly enumerates the allowed values for the 'document' parameter with examples and a usage example, adding clarity beyond the schema by explaining the representation of each enum value.

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 clearly states the tool fetches legal instruments as raw markdown, listing specific documents (Terms, Privacy, DPA, retention). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the exact resources available; no other sibling tool appears to handle legal instruments.

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 provides clear usage context: 'read them the way you read the pricesheet' and states it is public and read-only. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is strong enough given the specific document list.

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