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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral aspects: the return contents (cryptographic audit chain, Merkle epoch roots, delegation certificate, trust score, violation history) and a validation field (chain_verification.is_valid) that proves tamper-resistance. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but 'generate' implies a read/compute operation, making the disclosure reasonably adequate.

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, tightly packed with essential information: what it does, what it returns, and a key validation field. No redundant or filler content. Front-loaded with the action and regulatory context.

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 there is no output schema, the description lists the main return items and even highlights a verification field, which helps the agent understand what to expect. It lacks detailed instructions on how to use the returned bundle, but for a generation tool this is fairly complete. The regulatory context and tamper-proof guarantee add 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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so parameters are well-defined. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the schema quality. It only broadly references 'reporting period' implicitly via Art. 12 record-keeping.

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 identifies the tool as generating a compliance evidence bundle for specific EU AI Act articles (Art. 12 and 14). It uses a specific verb ('generate'), names the resource (compliance evidence bundle), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that check or verify rather than generate.

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 provides clear context: it is for regulatory submission and compliance evidence. It implies when to use it (when an audit proof bundle is needed) but does not explicitly compare with check_delegation_chain or verify_jurisdiction. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the purpose is distinct enough to infer usage.

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