get_compliance_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates and aggregates, implying a read operation that processes data, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or whether it's a safe read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 and front-loaded with two clear sentences that directly explain the tool's function without unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place by stating the action and scope efficiently.

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 complexity of generating a report, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like data processing, error handling, or what the report contains, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'framework' fully documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the framework is used to tag receipts, but does not provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Generate a compliance report mapped to a specific framework. Aggregates all receipts tagged with the specified framework.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('compliance report'), and scope ('framework'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query_receipts' or 'verify_trustatom', which might have overlapping or related 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions aggregating receipts tagged with a framework, but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'query_receipts' (which might retrieve receipts without generating a report) or 'verify_trustatom' (which could involve validation).

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