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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns a rating with regulatory basis and recommended actions, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other traits like data sources, limitations, or how urgency/license_types affect the result.

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 purpose, and contains no fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function and output.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, output type, and key behavior, while the schema covers parameter semantics, making the tool usable. It could benefit from clarifying how urgency or license_types influence the rating, but those details are already in the schema, so the overall package is complete enough.

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 all three parameters (urgency, description, license_types) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters beyond what is in the schema, so it rests at the baseline.

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 a specific action ('assess compliance risk') and resource ('planned business activity'), and specifies the output format (Red/Yellow/Green). It somewhat distinguishes from siblings like compliance_check or compliance_score by mentioning the color-coded rating, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or edge cases.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compliance_check or compliance_score. The description implies it is for planned activities, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or compare with sibling tools.

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