compliance_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses read-only safety, lack of LLM involvement, return shape, concrete violation codes, environment requirements, and even a historical bug where the tool used to drop the prior_anchor argument. This is unusually transparent.

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 front-loaded with purpose, return contract, and prerequisites, and it is well structured. It is somewhat long, with a historical-bug backstory and an editorial sentence about adversarial checks, but most of the extra detail is informative rather than filler.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a strong contract: return shape, meaning of ok=False, violation names, environment prerequisite, and prior_anchor behavior. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit descriptions for max_pii_age_days and require_receipts, though their roles are partially inferable.

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 the description must compensate. It explains prior_anchor in depth, including what it does, when its violation fires, and its historical limitation. However, max_pii_age_days and require_receipts are never explicitly tied to the pii_over_retention and receipts_disabled violations; the agent must infer their semantics from names and output codes.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: it 'asserts the invariants a store claiming AI-Act record-keeping must hold' and 'reports any regression.' It also distinguishes itself from report-like siblings by framing itself as a 'CI/CONTINUOUS compliance GATE (read-only, no LLM)' returning machine-readable checks.

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?

It clearly states the intended context: a continuous-integration gate for stores claiming AI-Act record-keeping compliance, with a prerequisite environment variable (INSPEXIMUS_RECEIPTS=1). It does not explicitly list alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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