Calculate compliance health score for a company. Requires company_id from the Portal system. Returns total items, completed, overdue, and score percentage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company_id | Yes | Company UUID from OrphicOne Portal |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly reflects a read-only calculation with no destructive behavior. It adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying the input source and the exact return fields, though it does not describe any potential error handling, rate limits, or authorization details.
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 main action, and includes only essential information about the input and output. No wasted words or redundant details.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the input source and explicitly lists all return components. However, the exact meaning of 'score percentage' and how the returned fields relate to one another are left somewhat implicit, so it is not fully complete.
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 full coverage for the single parameter, describing company_id as 'Company UUID from OrphicOne Portal.' The description's phrase 'from the Portal system' essentially repeats the schema's information without adding new format, constraints, or value semantics. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 and resource: 'Calculate compliance health score for a company.' It clearly names the output metrics (total items, completed, overdue, score percentage), and this differentiates it from sibling tools like compliance_check or risk_assessment by focusing on an aggregate health score rather than individual checks or assessments.
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 states a necessary prerequisite ('Requires company_id from the Portal system'), implying the tool should be used when you have a company identifier and need its compliance health score. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: querying regulations, searching enforcement, checking compliance health, assessing risk, getting SOPs, etc. However, checklist_lookup and query_regulation overlap somewhat in general regulatory questions, and compliance_check vs compliance_score could be confused, though descriptions help.
Tool names are all lowercase with underscores, but the pattern is inconsistent: some start with verbs (get_license_guide, query_regulation, search_enforcement), while others are noun-led (compliance_check, checklist_lookup, risk_assessment). This mixed convention reduces predictability.
10 tools is well-scoped for an SFC compliance assistant, covering a range of tasks from regulation lookup to risk assessment and enforcement search without being excessive. Each tool earns its place.
The tool surface covers the core domain lifecycle: regulatory knowledge, compliance checking, risk assessment, enforcement research, SOP guidance, license info, and updates. Minor gaps like direct form submission or detailed compliance item management exist, but the set is near complete for an advisory/analysis tool.