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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses optional fields, allowed ranges, and the non-empty subset constraint, plus the 'ledger adapts' behavior. However, it does not describe side effects like whether existing settings are overwritten, persistence, or authorization requirements.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, provides a compact body template, and packs constraints and behavioral notes efficiently. Well structured for quick parsing.

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 configuration tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers most key aspects: settings, constraints, and adaptation. But it omits what happens on success (e.g., return value), whether it's a patch or full replacement, and the exact effect of 'enabled'. Slightly incomplete given the complexity.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining regime, retention_days, and export_formats with concrete constraints. The 'enabled' parameter is only mentioned as optional without explaining what it enables, which is a minor gap.

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 setting compliance configuration (regime, retention, export formats) with a specific verb 'Set'. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like compliance_export or compliance_verify, but the scope is evident.

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?

Usage is implied through 'Set the customizable knob' and the list of settings, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions or references to alternatives. The 'No bespoke engineering' note hints at when it's appropriate, but not definitively.

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