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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, idempotent, read-only operation, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: the licensing gate ('Requires ClevSec Pro') and the structure/priority ordering of what it produces.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition before the output description, with zero filler. The parenthetical on priority areas (lawfulness, records, breach handling, processor contracts) is informative rather than redundant.

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 carries the full burden of explaining returns, and it does so concretely (open items, action, priority, article, roadmap phases). For a read-only plan generator with 0 required params and full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 both parameters (done, not_applicable) are fully documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description's 'turns the same input' hints that the parameter set mirrors gdpr_checklist_assessment, but adds no field-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('plan to close their GDPR gaps') and enumerates the concrete output (open items, recommended action, priority, GDPR article, 30/60/90-day roadmap). It clearly distinguishes itself from gdpr_checklist_assessment by framing itself as the follow-on planning step.

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 explicitly names the prerequisite tool ('Use after gdpr_checklist_assessment') and the enabling condition ('when the user wants a plan to close their GDPR gaps'), which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of a 5 because it never states when NOT to use it or contrasts against other remediation-plan siblings like dora_remediation_plan or nis2_remediation_plan.

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