get_compliance_status

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description's job is lighter. It adds the scoping constraint that this returns an aggregate status rather than raw items, but says nothing about what the summary contains, freshness of data, or default behavior when no parameters are supplied.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the scope options front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is thin enough that it does not demonstrate notable structural craft.

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 no-required-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the operation but omits the shape of the returned summary and the default scope when called with no arguments, which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 100%, so all three parameters (country, worker_id, contract_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format details or precedence rules (e.g. what happens if both worker_id and contract_id are given), so it does not exceed the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('compliance status summary') with clear scope alternatives ('organization or a specific worker/contract'). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_compliance_items and list_required_documents, though those distinctions are left implicit rather than named.

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?

Usage is implied through the three scoping options (no scope = organization, worker_id, contract_id), which an agent can infer. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or direction to alternatives such as list_compliance_items for itemized detail versus this summary view.

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