get_gstin_compliance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states exactly what data is returned, explicitly declares what is not computed (on-time percentage, defaulter flag), and adds a QRMP interpretation caveat. It does not cover failure modes or data freshness, but for a read-only summary tool the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the specific output metrics; the second sentence adds essential interpretive caveats. Every clause earns its place and there is no unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains the output components and the key interpretation caveat. It is slightly terse about the exact return format or field names, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 100% — both gstin and financial_year have detailed descriptions with examples. The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as returning a filing history summary per return type, listing the specific metrics: filed count, last period filed, months since, and average filing lag. The clause 'Facts only — no on-time percentage or defaulter flag is computed' implicitly distinguishes it from a compliance-judgment tool. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 says no on-time percentage or defaulter flag is computed and instructs the agent to 'apply your own thresholds', which gives clear contextual guidance on when this tool is appropriate. The QRMP caveat also helps the agent interpret multi-month gaps correctly. However, it never explicitly mentions an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition.

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