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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent query. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing that output is conditional on the supplied situations and by sketching the return content (items with articles, timing, exceptions).

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by what it returns and how to drive it. 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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what comes back (required items with articles, when notice must be given, exceptions) and how parameters shape it. Enough for an agent to call it correctly; only individual parameter coverage is thin.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate. It explains the functional role of the inputs ('situations that apply') as filters that drop irrelevant items, which is a useful semantic layer, but it does not clarify the three booleans lacking schema descriptions (relies_on_consent, transfers_outside_eea, relies_on_legitimate_interests).

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('lists every item the GDPR requires') and scopes it precisely with Art. 13 vs Art. 14, timing, and exceptions. An agent can immediately distinguish this reference/checklist tool from siblings like gdpr_breach_decision or gdpr_fine_estimate.

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?

Clearly states when to use it ('when writing or checking a privacy policy or privacy notice') and gives practical guidance ('tell it which situations apply to drop items you do not need'). It does not name alternatives or explicit exclusions, but the use context is unambiguous.

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