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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those: it states the computation does not check documents, use an AI model, save a report, access accounts, or certify compliance. It also imposes a strict rule to never infer confirmation or legal compliance from source code or absence of signals, and clarifies that unknown answers remain unknown. This is rich, non-redundant transparency.

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, each carrying distinct weight: the first states purpose and outputs, the second sets constraints on inference and unknown handling, the third lists exclusions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and does not waste words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only, idempotent screening tool with two parameters (one nested object) and no output schema, the description covers the operation, return categories, constraints, and exclusions. It does not explain the exact output format, but the listed components give sufficient guidance, and the schema documents parameter types. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 50%: factsConfirmedByUser has a description in the schema, while facts does not. The tool description compensates by explaining that facts must be explicitly confirmed by the user and that unknown answers remain unknown, adding semantic meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not detail the structure of the facts object (e.g., allowed values), which the schema partially provides. Overall, the description adds meaningful value over the schema.

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 states the action: run Merron's versioned, bounded AI Act rules on explicitly confirmed facts, and lists the specific outputs (conditional screening result, unresolved routes, missing questions, official references). It also explicitly enumerates what it does not do, which distinguishes it from siblings like scan_project. This is a specific verb+resource statement.

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 description strongly implies the tool is only for facts the user has explicitly confirmed, and warns against inferring confirmation from code or absence of signals. It also clarifies that it does not check documents, use an AI model, or certify compliance, which helps an agent choose this over alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide a direct 'use this when...' vs 'use that when...' comparison, so it is clear but not fully explicit.

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