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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: it explains that VIGO will 'plan the execution strategy, gather information from multiple sources (regulations, enforcement, knowledge graph), and synthesize a comprehensive report.' This sets expectations about the tool's autonomous multi-step behavior and information sources. It does not contradict the 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 two sentences long, with the core purpose stated first. It is concise, free of redundant phrasing, and each sentence contributes valuable context (what it does, how it works, and when to use it). No words are wasted.

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 tool's complexity (autonomous multi-step task) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the execution strategy, information sources, and expected outcome (comprehensive report). It could elaborate on report structure or limitations, but the provided context covers the essential decision factors for an agent.

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 100%, and each parameter (task, context, output_format) has a descriptive schema definition. The tool description itself does not add meaningful parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, 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's purpose: 'Execute a complex multi-step regulatory task autonomously.' It uses a specific verb ('execute') and resource ('regulatory task'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as a general autonomous executor rather than a specific single-purpose lookup. Examples like due diligence and compliance planning reinforce this distinction.

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 explicit use cases: 'Use for due diligence, compliance planning, license acquisition roadmaps, or any task requiring multiple analysis steps.' This gives clear guidance on when to invoke it. However, it stops short of naming alternatives or explicitly stating when not to use it (e.g., for simple lookups, use sibling tools).

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