Check Data Combination Permitted

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. The description adds useful regulatory context (HIPAA, COPPA, GDPR Art 9) but says nothing about what a denial looks like or what the caller should do on failure, and there is no output schema to carry that.

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 short sentences with zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded before the regulatory rationale. Well-sized for what it chooses to say, even though it omits needed detail.

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?

A 6-parameter compliance-checking tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema needs the description to explain both the inputs and the meaning of a permitted/denied result. Neither is present, leaving the agent unable to correctly populate most arguments.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them, and it adds nothing. Fields like reason, regulatoryBasis, forbiddenSourceIds, and forbiddenSourceClasses are entirely opaque; only the vague 'two sources' hints at otherSourceId.

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 and resource: 'Check if combining data from two sources is permitted.' The 'combining data from two sources' framing reasonably distinguishes it from siblings like check_purpose_permitted and check_retention_expired, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related check_purpose_permitted / check_usage_permitted siblings. The agent must infer that this applies specifically to cross-source inferences from the purpose statement alone.

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