breach_notified

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the conditional requirement for `reasons_for_delay` after 72 hours and explains what `exemption` records, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare schema.

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 compact, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence contributes useful domain or conditional information. It avoids padding while covering the core behavior and parameter conditions.

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?

The description provides strong legal and conditional context, but the missing semantics for required parameters `seq` and `actor` are a real gap, especially with no schema descriptions and no output schema. It is sufficient for a domain-savvy agent but not fully self-contained.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for the seven parameters. It explains `to`, `reasons_for_delay`, and `exemption` well, but leaves `seq`, `actor`, `ts`, and `note` semantically undocumented in both schema and description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: record that a breach `seq` was notified to a defined set of recipients. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like `record_breach` and `breach_report` by focusing on the notification event and citing the relevant GDPR articles.

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?

The description makes the intended context clear: use this when recording a notification to the supervisory authority, data subjects, or the public. It also provides conditional guidance for `reasons_for_delay` and `exemption`, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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