generate_saq

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

With no annotations provided, the description thoroughly covers behavioral traits: read-only (no side effects), authentication requirements, rate limits (10/day free), error handling, idempotency, and data privacy. All traits beyond what annotations would typically provide.

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, Args, Behavioral Transparency) and is front-loaded with the core purpose. While slightly lengthy, each section adds value without redundancy.

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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description provides comprehensive coverage of behavior, limitations, and usage guidance. It could clarify the output format or template content, but the presence of an output schema mitigates this gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. The 'Args' section only repeats parameter names and types ('organization_name (str)') without adding meaningful constraints, examples, or descriptions of valid values. Also fails to mention the 'caller' parameter from the 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?

The description clearly states 'Generate a PCI DSS Self-Assessment Questionnaire template,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like assess_pci_compliance or vulnerability_scan_check, which have different purposes.

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 includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate and warning against using it as legal advice. This helps the agent decide between alternatives.

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