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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it does not describe side effects, return values, permissions, or any operational characteristics. It only scopes the content area. This falls far short of what is needed.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It consists of a fragment listing policy names, lacking a verb or complete sentence. It does not convey what the tool does, so brevity is not a virtue here.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameters, the description must fully explain the tool's purpose and behavior. It does neither. Even for a simple mapping tool, the description is severely incomplete.

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, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 does not state what the tool does. It merely lists policy identifiers ('DORA-POL-01 to POL-04, 12 RTS policies, cross-jurisdiction') without a verb or resource indicating an action. The name 'obligation_map' hints at mapping, but the description itself is a noun phrase, not a function statement.

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 like coverage_map or policy_gap_check. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The description gives no indication of the intended use case.

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