global_compliance_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly discloses the stateless nature, noting it records no decision and leaves no timeline trace, which is valuable behavior for an agent to know. It also quantifies the content (28 entries, 24 statutes). Missing details on return format or permissions are minor.

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 sentences: first states purpose and content, second states side-effect-free behavior. No fluff, front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter reference tool, the description is complete: it says what the tool is, what data it contains, and what side effects it has. No output schema exists, but 'catalogue' implies a list of entries, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms the stateless lookup nature, but with no parameters to describe, it doesn't need to add further parameter semantics.

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 defines the tool as a 'Master catalogue' of privacy/security/sectoral regimes, with a specific count (28 entries, 24 statutes). It also calls it a 'Stateless lookup,' clearly distinguishing it from the analysis/classification siblings like ai_act_classify and breach_classify.

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 context that this is a stateless lookup ('records no decision and leaves no dashboard timeline trace'), implying it's for reference rather than decision-making. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or specify exactly when to choose this over a specific regulatory check.

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