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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) indicate safe, side-effect-free operation. The description adds 'deterministic, no LLM — cannot hallucinate', 'reproducible', and 'NOT legal advice', providing valuable behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences: defines the engine, summarizes the function, and adds constraints/disclaimer. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded with the most critical information.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, deterministic nature, required parameters, paid behavior, and disclaimer. Given 9 parameters and no output schema, missing details about the response format are a minor gap, but overall adequate.

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 56%, so baseline is 3. The description only repeats that 'state' and 'sector' are required, which is already in the schema. No additional parameter-level guidance is provided.

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 explicitly states 'Give a business profile; get the applicable AI-law obligations plus a reproducible 1–10 risk score with a named factor breakdown.' It clearly identifies the tool as a deterministic compliance-report engine, distinct from siblings like get_ai_obligations which only list obligations without scoring.

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 implies this tool is for comprehensive compliance assessment, mentioning paid feature differences and a legal disclaimer. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_ai_obligations' or 'generate_compliance_report'.

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