Complyzard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint. Beyond those, the description adds two useful facts: only published resources are returned, and the content is untrusted contributor/external material (a prompt-injection caution). It says nothing about missing/unpublished slug behavior, so the added context is real but partial.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the return payload, then the prerequisite, then the trust caveat. Nothing is redundant and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields, and the published-only and untrusted-content notes cover the main behavioral risks. Only error/empty-result behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a single-parameter read 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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents slug. The description only restates that the slug comes from search_documents, adding no format or edge-case meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates the exact payload: summary, scope, section headings, formats, author, version, source attribution, preview. It partially distinguishes itself from siblings by tying the call to the slug from search_documents, though the name/title mismatch ('document' vs 'resource') slightly blurs the referent.

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?

It states a clear prerequisite workflow: use the slug returned by search_documents, implying search first, then fetch details. It also scopes the tool to 'published' resources. There are no explicit exclusions or comparison against get_document_filters, which keeps it below a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: counts are restricted to 'published' resources, and the output is explicitly the filter vocabulary consumed by search_documents. It omits any note on freshness, pagination, or result size.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The list of returned facets is front-loaded and the optional narrowing plus downstream consumer follow immediately.

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 optional-parameter, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description states what is returned (facet values with published counts), how to narrow it, and where the values are used. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents `category` including its slug pattern. The description's 'Optionally narrow counts to a category' restates rather than extends that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and enumerates the exact resources returned (categories, topics, frameworks, resource types, file formats) plus the counts. It also names the sibling consumer (search_documents), so an agent can separate this discovery tool from search_documents and get_document_details without reading any schema.

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 closing sentence 'Returns filter values accepted by search_documents' makes the intended usage pattern (call this to discover valid filter values before searching) clear. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or contrast it against get_document_details, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value: return shape (summaries and links), pagination size (12 per page), and a security warning that resource text is untrusted contributor content. It omits total-result limits and whether paging beyond page 100 truncates.

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?

Three compact sentences, all load-bearing: capability and filter dimensions first, return shape and pagination second, the sibling pointer and trust warning last. No filler or repetition of schema text.

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 usefully explains what comes back and the page size, and it points to the companion tool for valid filter values. It could still say more about ordering across pages or how the untrusted content should be handled, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents every parameter including slugs, enums, defaults and maxLength. The description's enumeration of filter dimensions adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (published Complyzard resources) plus the exact filter dimensions supported. An agent can distinguish it from get_document_details (single resource) and get_document_filters (filter values) without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_document_filters to obtain valid filter values, and the schema note about leaving query empty to browse supports discovery workflows. It does not state when to prefer get_document_details over this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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