See pricing and features for every plan — Free (10 scans/day, full reports), Pro (29 EUR/mo, unlimited + CI/CD), Certified (cryptographic audit trail). No arguments. Call register_free_key() to activate your free API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's output content (plan details, prices, features), states 'No arguments,' and hints at dependency on API key activation via register_free_key. While it doesn't explicitly say 'read-only' or list auth requirements, the behavior is clear: it simply displays pricing information without side effects.
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 compact and front-loaded: the first clause states the purpose, followed by a dash-separated plan summary, and ends with a useful cross-reference to register_free_key. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the entire description is just two sentences with no wasted words.
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 simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, a simple informational task), the description is complete. It explains what the user will see (plan details), confirms no arguments are needed, and offers a relevant next step for API key activation. There are no gaps for the agent to misinterpret.
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 tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'No arguments,' which is all that is needed. It adds no additional parameter semantics because there are none to explain.
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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'See pricing and features for every plan.' It enumerates the plans, which distinguishes it from all sibling tools that deal with compliance, scanning, or key management. No ambiguity about what this tool does.
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 implies usage by stating 'See pricing and features' and then gives concrete next steps with 'Call register_free_key() to activate your free API key.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since no sibling tool offers pricing, this is effective guidance.
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.
Multiple tools overlap in scope: scan_project, gdpr_scan_project, and combined_compliance_report all perform scanning, while check_compliance, gdpr_check_compliance, and combined_compliance_report all return pass/fail results. The combined tool explicitly replaces the individual scanners, yet they remain available, creating confusion about which to call.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: EU AI Act tools use verb-first patterns (generate_report, scan_project), while GDPR tools prefix the law (gdpr_generate_report, gdpr_scan_project). 'combined_compliance_report' breaks the verb_noun pattern entirely, and the placement of 'gdpr' varies inconsistently across tools.
16 tools is on the heavier side for this domain, but the dual EU AI Act + GDPR scope partially justifies the count. However, several tools are redundant (e.g., scan_project vs. combined_compliance_report), inflating the total without adding unique functionality.
The tool set covers the compliance lifecycle well: scanning, gap analysis, reporting, templates, roadmap generation, certification, and risk classification. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to manage specific remediation status), but the core workflows are fully supported.
