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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by specifying the return content in detail: who must report, to whom, by when, with the governing article and the point at which the clock starts — genuine behavioral disclosure about what comes back.

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 definition is front-loaded with the use case before the content inventory, and no sentence is filler. The second sentence is long and list-heavy (four regimes plus article and clock-start details), which makes it slightly dense, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the scope, the regimes and the shape of the answer. The only omission is whether results are regime-partitioned or returned as a single merged list when no filter is supplied.

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?

There is a single optional 'regimes' parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Limit to these regimes; omit for all'), so the schema already does the work. The description's mention of GDPR, NIS2, DORA and CRA names the same set but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (incident/breach reporting deadlines in the EU) and verb-equivalent (lists who must report what, to whom, by when), and enumerates the four regimes covered with their trigger types. This distinguishes it from siblings like gdpr_breach_decision, nis2_scope_check or dora_classify_incident, which assess or classify rather than return deadline tables.

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 clear usage context with a canonical question example ('how long do we have to report a breach / a cyber incident?'), so an agent knows when to reach for it. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g. use dora_classify_incident first to determine whether an incident is reportable), so it falls short of an explicit routing rule.

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