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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content-level disclosure (that each date carries confidence and review status), but says nothing about freshness, source authority, or how the data is maintained.

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?

A single sentence with the resource named first and a colon-delimited enumeration of contents. Nothing is wasted and it 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return shape—it does by naming the dates, the obligation groups, and the confidence/review metadata. For a zero-param static lookup this is close to complete, missing only freshness or provenance notes.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden; baseline 4 applies. The description cannot and need not add parameter detail.

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 uses a concrete resource (key dates under India DPDP Rules, 2025) and enumerates the scope of those dates: notification date and the commencement of obligation groups (Consent Managers, Data Fiduciary duties, penalties). This clearly distinguishes it from dpdp_obligations and dpdp_penalty_ceilings by content, though it never references those siblings by name.

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?

Usage is implied: retrieve key compliance dates. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to the sibling tools (dpdp_obligations, dpdp_penalty_ceilings), which an agent choosing between three DPDP tools would benefit from.

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