PDPL obligations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds only that filtering is optional and unspecified; it says nothing about result size, pagination, or how PDPL obligations relate to ECC controls in the output.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core scope front-loaded and the filter caveat second. No filler, though the second sentence is vague enough ('by words') that it buys little.

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 three-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and that filtering is optional, but it omits how results relate to the ECC and what markdown vs json output actually contains.

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 67%: lang and response_format are documented in the schema, but query has no schema description. The phrase 'Optionally filter by words' partially compensates for that gap by implying free-text matching, though it does not specify matching behavior or syntax.

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 (List) and resource (core obligations from the Saudi PDPL) and frames them as sitting alongside the ECC, which separates it from the ECC-centric siblings like ecc_list_domains and ecc_get_control. It does not name a sibling explicitly or clarify overlap with ecc_crosswalk, but the scope is clear.

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 only usage hint is 'Optionally filter by words,' which addresses the query parameter rather than when to choose this tool over ecc_crosswalk or the other ECC tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing guidance is given.

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