breach_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other potential behaviors such as error handling, permissions, or performance characteristics, leaving some gaps for a read operation.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates the record contents. It is efficient and logical, though the enumeration is long. It avoids redundancy and keeps the structure clear.

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 simple schema (one integer parameter) and no output schema or annotations, the description provides a substantial overview of what the tool returns by listing the record's contents. It lacks explicit return type or error handling details, but for a read-only report, the listed fields are likely sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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?

The schema only provides type and title for seq, with no description (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by referring to 'breach `seq`,' clarifying that the parameter identifies the breach sequence number. This is essential semantic information that the schema lacks, though it does not elaborate on format or constraints.

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 identifies the tool as providing the Art. 33 and 34 breach record for a given sequence number, enumerating its contents. It distinguishes from sibling report tools by referencing specific GDPR articles and breach-specific fields, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like record_breach or breach_notified. The context of being for a specific breach seq is implicit but not an explicit usage guideline.

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