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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive). The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it discloses what the tool does NOT do (no document checking, no AI model, no report saving, no account access, no certification) and enforces a strict epistemic rule that unknown answers stay unknown — highly valuable guardrails for an agent.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then outputs, then caveats, with no throwaway sentences. It is dense and slightly repetitive ('Never infer confirmation' / 'Unknown answers remain unknown'), but each sentence adds distinct meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates returns ('conditional screening result, unresolved routes, missing questions and official references'). Combined with the explicit scope limits, it is close to complete for a nested-object, 2-param tool, though the 'facts' object keys remain unspecified.

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 50%, with the meaning of the 'facts' object largely carried by the description. The text clarifies the confirmation requirement ('facts the user has explicitly confirmed') and the null-handling semantics ('Unknown answers remain unknown'), which maps to the null enum value. The provider/deployer/both enum values are not elaborated, keeping this short of a 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run Merron's versioned, bounded AI Act rules on facts the user has explicitly confirmed.' It also distinguishes its scope from the scanning sibling by explicitly stating 'This computation does not check documents,' so an agent can separate it from merron_scan_project without opening a schema.

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 rather than stated: the tool is for facts the user has already confirmed ('Never infer confirmation... from source code'). There is no explicit naming of alternatives (merron_get_questions, merron_scan_project) or a clear when-to-use/when-not statement, so routing among siblings must be inferred.

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