Compliance Registry

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions that region is case-insensitive but omits details like pagination, result ordering, empty result behavior, or rate limits. The search nature is clear but behavioral specifics are lacking.

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 concise with a purpose sentence and bullet point parameter details. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, the bullet formatting is informal (using dashes and newlines) but still readable.

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 no output schema, the description fails to mention what search results contain (e.g., firm IDs, names). It also doesn't clarify that all parameters are optional, so a search with no filters returns all firms. This leaves gaps for an agent to understand the full context.

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%, so the description provides all parameter meaning. It explains sub_vertical values, region's matching semantics, capability's field matching, and limit's purpose. This adds significant value over the bare schema.

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?

Clearly states 'Search the Compliance Registry for vetted compliance and regulatory firms' with a specific verb and resource. The sibling tools (get_firm_profile, get_wcag_audit, request_introduction) have distinct purposes, so this tool is well-differentiated.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies usage through parameter descriptions but lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisites, such as 'use when you need to find firms, use get_firm_profile when you have a firm ID'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only lists return fields without disclosing behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or authentication requirements.

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 sentence with a clear list of fields, front-loading the purpose. It avoids unnecessary words but could be broken into more structured form.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately lists the returned fields. However, it omits error handling or prerequisites.

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 single parameter 'slug' is not explained beyond its title in the schema; the description adds no additional meaning, such as how to obtain or format the slug.

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 'Full dossier for a single firm' and lists specific data fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_compliance_firm, which is for searching.

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 implicitly suggests use when retrieving a detailed profile for a known firm, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like find_compliance_firm or get_wcag_audit.

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

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

No annotations exist, so description carries burden. It implies a read operation by stating it 'provides' information, but does not explicitly declare read-only nature, permissions, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded content. No redundant words. Efficient communication of purpose and contents.

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?

Lists key components of the offering (scope, deliverables, timeline, pricing, etc.), providing good context for what the tool returns. Lacks explicit mention of output format but is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool without output 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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage (no properties). Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as description adds no param info, which is acceptable.

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 provides a structured offering for TESSA's WCAG 2.2 AA Accessibility Audit, listing specific contents like scope, deliverables, and pricing. It is distinct from siblings which deal with finding firms or profiles.

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?

Explicitly advises use 'when a buyer agent wants accessibility audit details in structured form.' While it does not mention when not to use or alternatives, the context of sibling tools implies differentiation.

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

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key side effects: TESSA logs the lead and forwards a warm intro email with TESSA Cc'd. It also notes no calendar booking. However, it doesn't mention idempotency, authentication needs, or whether the action is reversible, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 three sentences, each adding distinct value: stating the purpose, clarifying routing, and noting absence of calendar booking. It is front-loaded with the action. Slightly more detail on parameters could be added without harming conciseness.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It only explains the overall flow and one parameter, leaving the agent guessing about the purpose and format of the other four parameters. The lack of examples or guidance on optional fields like prospect_org or project_brief makes the tool hard to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description only explains one parameter (target_firm_slug) and implies prospect_email is required but does not describe its semantics. The other four parameters (prospect_org, project_brief, prospect_name, requested_window) are not explained, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use them correctly.

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 the tool's action: 'Request a warm introduction to a Compliance Registry firm.' It specifies the resource and distinguishes from siblings like find_compliance_firm or get_firm_profile by clarifying routing behavior (not to TESSA directly).

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 explicit guidance: 'target_firm_slug is required' and states this tool routes leads to listed firms, not directly to TESSA. It also clarifies that 'No calendar booking' is included, helping agents set expectations. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare with siblings.

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