compliance-radar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It clearly states the tool performs pure date arithmetic over officially-cited rules and is not individualized legal advice, which sets expectations and limitations. It could further disclose that the list may not be exhaustive, but overall good.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose, the second clarifies methodology and limitations, the third gives advice. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, inputs, and behavioral caveats. It lacks explicit mention of output format or structure, which is a minor gap for completeness.

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 67%, and the description names key inputs (entity type, state, formation date, flags) but adds little detail beyond the schema. The description does not clarify formats or defaults, so it provides minimal added 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 tool builds a personalized checklist of compliance obligations and deadlines from entity profile data, using specific verbs 'build' and 'personalized list'. It distinguishes from siblings: create_deadline_tracker, get_obligation, list_obligations, as it generates a custom list rather than managing existing items.

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 usage when you have an entity profile and need a checklist, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives. The verification advice is not usage guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool creates a tracker, returns a 'manage id', and that reminders are informational. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., whether it modifies existing profiles), error handling, permission requirements, or rate limits. More behavioral detail would be beneficial.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and avoids redundancy. Every phrase adds value: 'Save an entity profile...', 'returns a manage id', and the disclaimer. No wasted words.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'manage id' is used for, how the state parameter affects deadlines, what the boolean flags represent, or the expected behavior when parameters conflict. The disclaimer is useful but does not fill the gaps for agent understanding.

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 44% (4 of 9 params described). The description adds meaning by stating 'plus an email and/or webhook URL' hinting at the requirement of at least one of these, which is not reflected in the schema (0 required params). It also uses 'FREE' to imply value. However, it does not explain the boolean flags (foreignOwned, hasEmployees, paysContractors) or state parameter, which limits semantic clarity.

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 'Save an entity profile plus an email and/or webhook URL to receive FREE recurring reminders before each upcoming compliance deadline.' It specifies the resource (entity profile for reminders) and the action (save + set up reminders). The sibling tools (build_checklist, get_obligation, list_obligations) are different, so this tool's unique purpose 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?

The description mentions 'FREE' and 'INFORMATIONAL reminders only — not legal or tax advice,' which gives some context about appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for actual legal obligations, use other tools), nor does it provide prerequisites or contraindications.

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

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

Discloses the informational nature and that it is not legal advice. Lists specific fields returned: what it is, who must file, deadline, penalty, link to official source with verification date. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden well.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a crucial limitation. Every word adds value.

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 tool with no output schema, the description enumerates expected return fields and includes verification status, fully informing the agent of what to expect.

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 describes the id parameter; description adds examples ('fincen-boi', 'irs-5472') and clarifies that it returns full detail for a single obligation, enhancing understanding beyond schema alone.

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?

Clearly states 'Return full detail for a single obligation by id' – specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like list_obligations (returns list) and build_checklist (builds checklist).

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?

Includes explicit caution 'INFORMATIONAL ONLY — not legal or tax advice', setting appropriate usage boundaries. Context suggests use when needing full detail on one obligation vs listing all, but does not name alternatives directly.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the informational nature (not legal advice) and that each item cites sources with verification dates. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness guarantees.

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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. The first sentence states the core functionality with examples, and the second adds source citation and disclaimer. No unnecessary words.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description provides moderate context: it mentions each item cites official sources and verification dates. However, it does not describe the return format or behavior when no filters are applied, which would be helpful for agent usage.

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 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter's meaning. The description adds only the phrase 'Optionally filter by', which adds minimal value beyond 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'recurring US compliance / tax-filing obligations' with specific examples like FinCEN BOI, IRS Form 5472. It distinguishes itself from siblings (list vs. build_checklist, create_deadline_tracker, get_obligation) by its broad listing purpose.

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 usage for browsing common obligations with optional filters, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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