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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by detailing what behavioral coverage the assessment includes (FRR capital, RO configuration, MIC roles, etc.), giving the agent a clearer picture of the tool's output focus.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause adds useful information (inputs and coverage areas). There is no wasted verbiage.

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 no output schema, the description provides a useful summary of the assessment's content areas, which helps set expectations. Parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the description adequately complements the structured data for this moderate-complexity tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only says 'Input company profile' without adding any new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Perform a compliance health check') and resource ('licensed corporation'), and enumerates distinct coverage areas (FRR capital, RO configuration, MIC roles, annual obligations, regulatory focus areas). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like risk_assessment or compliance_score.

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 tells the user to input a company profile and receive a risk assessment, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., compliance_score, risk_assessment) or provide exclusions. Context is implied rather than explicit.

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