Compile a deterministic, cited disclosure draft from supplied company facts and an optional verified GHG-ledger result. Missing required datapoints remain explicit gaps; no prose or values are fabricated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| options | No | ||
| framework | Yes | ||
| ghg_result | No | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| payment_ref | No | ||
| company_facts | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently states the tool is deterministic, cites sources, does not fabricate data, and leaves gaps explicit. This gives a solid understanding of the tool's behavior without needing annotations.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and critical behavioral traits. Every phrase adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return details are covered externally. The description covers the main function, inputs, and key constraints (determinism, no fabrication). It does not elaborate on the meaning of 'deterministic' or edge cases, but is sufficiently complete for a tool with a supplementary schema.
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 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description only explains two inputs (company_facts, ghg_result) indirectly; framework, options, request_id, payment_ref are not elaborated. Given the parameter complexity (6 params, 2 required), the description should provide more parameter-level meaning.
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 identifies the tool's action ('Compile'), resource ('disclosure draft'), inputs ('company facts, optional GHG-ledger result'), and key properties ('deterministic, cited, no fabrication'). It is distinct from siblings which handle agent description, framework retrieval, and verification.
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 use when needing a deterministic disclosure draft from known facts, and mentions the optional GHG result. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tools have different purposes.
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.
All five tools have distinct and clearly defined purposes: compilation, agent info, framework retrieval (detail and list), and verification. No overlap or ambiguity exists.
Every tool uses snake_case with a consistent verb_noun pattern (compile_disclosure, describe_agent, get_framework, list_frameworks, verify_result). No deviations.
Five tools cover the core capabilities of a disclosure compiler without redundancy. The scope is well-scoped and each tool earns its place.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: compilation, framework exploration, verification, and agent metadata. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.