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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a read/fetch operation, so the safety profile is already covered by annotations. The description adds real value by disclosing the response shape (a JSON Schema) and a pre-condition tied to engagement start, but says nothing about whether the schema varies by governing law or how large/complex the output is.

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 short sentences with the resource and return format front-loaded, followed by the narrowing behavior and the prerequisite. Slightly awkward opening clause 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?

With only one required parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what comes back (JSON Schema), the two service variants, optional narrowing, and the precondition on submitting. The main gap is the unaddressed relationship to get_dpa_requirements.

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 67% and the description compensates by explaining conditional applicability: role and governingLaw only matter for a DPA and "narrow" the result. That conditional scoping is not expressed in the schema, which just lists them as flat optional properties. It does not list the governingLaw enum values (CALIFORNIA/SPAIN), but the schema does.

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 names the resource precisely (the facts a service needs) and states the return format is a JSON Schema, plus enumerates the two service variants. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the very similar sibling get_dpa_requirements, leaving ambiguity about which to call.

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 one useful workflow constraint ("Do not send the facts until the engagement has begun"), which implicitly points at submit_dpa_facts/submit_facts. But it never says when to use this general tool versus the DPA-specific sibling, and the sequencing rule is about a different tool rather than about selecting this one.

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