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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states the inputs (use case, optional jurisdiction) and the outputs (all applicable obligations with evidence requirements, enforcement dates, penalty information). It does not mention potential side effects or limitations, but for a read-only query tool, this is adequate. The description adds context that is not in the schema, such as the nature of the data returned.

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 concise sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence immediately states the function and returns, and the second sentence gives the use case. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.

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 has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description effectively covers the purpose, inputs, and output content. It explains the types of information returned (evidence requirements, enforcement dates, penalties), which is essential since there is no output schema. It could mention edge cases like missing data or time requirements, but for a straightforward query tool, it is sufficiently 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 input schema already describes both parameters thoroughly: use_case has examples, and jurisdiction_code explains it is optional and can be omitted. The description merely repeats 'AI agent use case and optional jurisdiction' without adding new parameter details. With schema coverage at 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate 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 clearly identifies the tool's function: 'Given an AI agent use case and optional jurisdiction, returns all applicable regulatory obligations with evidence requirements, enforcement dates, and penalty information.' It uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('regulatory obligations'), and the second sentence clarifies the use case ('understand what compliance requirements apply'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_deadline or compare_jurisdictions, which target different aspects.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Use this to understand what compliance requirements apply to a specific type of AI agent.' It implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since sibling tools exist for related but distinct purposes, the description could have been more explicit about not using this for deadlines or comparisons, but the context is clear enough.

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