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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool returns reportability, reasoning, deadline, and who to notify, and that it 'evaluates and records' while leaving action to the user. This clarifies it is an advisory, non-executive tool, though the exact recording behavior remains vague.

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 description is front-loaded with the primary action, then explains inputs/outputs, and concludes with an alternative and a caveat. At three sentences it is slightly longer than the ideal but each sentence contributes distinct value, so no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's cross-regulatory complexity and lack of an output schema, the description does a strong job explaining what the tool returns and when to use it. It covers the core use case and relevant alternative, making it sufficiently complete for agent invocation.

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 0%, so the description compensates by naming key input parameters: 'affected count, data categories, sensitivity, recovery state.' However, two optional fields (jurisdiction, processing_purpose) are not described, and no format details are provided beyond what the schema enums already show.

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 clearly states the tool's verb and resource: 'check whether it is legally reportable' after a security incident. It also distinguishes itself from sibling us_state_breach_deadline by focusing on full incident decisioning across multiple regulations rather than a quick state table.

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 says when to use the tool ('After a security incident, check whether it is legally reportable before you decide how to respond') and provides an alternative for a different use case: 'for a quick per-US-state deadline/recipient/threshold table without incident facts, use us_state_breach_deadline.'

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