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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true), the description discloses data sources (NLP over gazettes, agency publications), weighting methodology, refresh cadence ('Daily refresh', 'Updates: daily'), depth of history (to 1997), and return fields. This adds substantial behavioral context with no contradiction to 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states exactly what the tool returns and how, the second gives usage guidance, and the third covers freshness. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the simple schema (one optional parameter) and read-only annotations, the description provides sufficient detail for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result (score, trend, confidence, top_drivers). The lack of output schema is mitigated by listing expected fields.

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?

The input schema fully describes the optional 'days' parameter, including behavior and tier requirement, with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool returns a 0-100 regulatory compliance risk score with specific output fields, methodology, and use cases. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the title and description make its domain unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to call, listing trigger phrases like 'regulatory exposure' and decision contexts like 'market entry' and 'vendor onboarding'. Does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but offers clear context.

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