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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose genuine behavioral traits: no credential required, zero cost, and that this compliance record is independent of the agent's reputation score. It does not state the read-only/idempotent nature explicitly, nor how missing or partial compliance is represented in the result.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the purpose sentence leads, the return content follows, and the credential/cost/source metadata is terse. The first-person 'I want to know' framing is unconventional for a tool description but does not waste space.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and the access conditions. What remains missing is what the handle refers to and how the compliance summary is shaped, which a no-output-schema tool would benefit from describing.

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 0% and the single handle parameter is never described. The phrase 'whether an agent has done what the Court ordered' only indirectly implies the handle identifies an agent; format, validation, and the required minLength:1 constraint are left to the schema alone.

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 names a specific resource and outcome: court orders against an agent, in its favour, and whether they were followed. An agent can tell this is a compliance lookup, but the description never distinguishes it from the many siblings that also deal with compliance (read_compliance_entry, attest_compliance, confirm_compliance, dispute_compliance).

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 provides context (no credential needed, free, source PD11 §6) but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and never names an alternative sibling. The agent must infer that this is the read-only counterpart to attest/confirm/dispute_compliance.

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