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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool runs an audit and covers ~35-40 rules, which implies read-only analysis, but it does not describe what output is returned, whether it requires url or text input, or any side effects. This is adequate but minimal.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys scope, jurisdiction, and content without redundant words. Every element 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?

This is a complex legal audit tool with no output schema and no required parameters. The description explains scope but omits expected return format, whether the tool can run without any input, and how url/text relate. The schema mitigates some gaps, but the missing operational detail leaves room for uncertainty.

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 schema already provides thorough descriptions for all three parameters (url, text, asset_type) with 100% coverage. The description adds regulatory context but does not enrich the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already defines, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and clearly identifies the resource ('full MAS Singapore DPT marketing self-audit') with a rule count. It distinguishes itself from siblings like run_fca_pro_check and run_mica_pro_check by naming the jurisdiction and topic.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for MAS Singapore DPT marketing audits and lists the legal regimes involved. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the jurisdiction and regulatory citations make the intended use obvious in the context of sibling tools.

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