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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses cross-system connectivity and an optional live status lookup, which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether permissions are required, or what side effects might occur, so gaps remain.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and ends with a practical parameter tip, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has two optional parameters, no output schema, and a cross-system scope, yet the description does not clarify whether at least one parameter is required, what the returned trace looks like, or how to interpret the results. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds only a brief note about entity_id for 'live Ampel status,' which largely duplicates the schema's own description. The description does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it performs a 'Full regulatory trace' through a defined chain (Obligation → Control → Evidence → Finding), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like obligation_search. It also specifies the integration between LawOracle and DORA OS, making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (for regulatory tracing) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. The phrase 'Pass entity_id for live Ampel status' is more of a parameter tip than a usage guideline, leaving the tool's selection context largely implicit.

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