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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Check,' implying a read-only operation, but it does not describe what happens during the check, whether it has side effects, what it returns, or any access/rate-limiting constraints. The lack of such details is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word adds meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the check is performed, or what 'compliance' entails. The single sentence leaves many essential details missing for effective use.

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 schema has one parameter (entity_id) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description uses the phrase 'per provider,' which vaguely hints that entity_id may be a provider identifier, but it does not explicitly define the parameter's purpose, format, or optionality. This is insufficient compensation for the schema's lack of details.

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 what the tool does: 'Check Art. 30 contract clause compliance per provider.' It uses a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('Art. 30 contract clause compliance') and adds the scope 'per provider.' This distinguishes it from generic tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ctpp_check or obligation_map, so it is not a full 5.

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. The description only states what it does, not the context or prerequisites. It does not mention when to prefer this over other tools like ctpp_check or sla_check, and there are no exclusions or caveats.

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