multi_jurisdiction_map

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It covers read-only, stateless, idempotency, rate limits (free/pro tiers), authentication (basic vs API key), error handling, and data privacy. This is comprehensive and exceeds typical detail.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Behavior, When to use, etc.) and front-loads the core purpose. While verbose, each sentence adds value. Minor repetition of 'Behavioral Transparency' heading but overall efficient.

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 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and some parameter context. It doesn't detail return values (but output schema exists). Lacks precise format for jurisdictions parameter, but overall sufficient for an agent to use 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%, so description must compensate. It explains api_key indirectly via authentication notes but does not explicitly describe its role. It mentions 'article' and 'jurisdictions' by context but omits format, allowed values, or default behavior. Some value added, but incomplete.

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 explicitly states 'Map EU AI Act articles to equivalent requirements in UK, Singapore, Canada, and US NIST,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like audit_report or classify_ai_risk, which serve different compliance functions.

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 'When to use' section lists concrete scenarios like gap analysis and readiness checks. 'When NOT to use' explicitly warns against substituting legal counsel, providing clear exclusion criteria. This is exemplary guidance.

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