compliance_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well by explicitly stating the tool is 'read-only, no LLM', uses 'LIVE counts', provides an 'honest per-control status', and requires the INSPEXIMUS_RECEIPTS=1 environment variable for tamper-evident record-keeping. It is transparent about scope limitations and the non-certification nature, though it does not describe the exact return structure.

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 dense but efficient; nearly every clause carries meaningful information, and the most important identifier ('EU AI Act AGENT-MEMORY compliance EVIDENCE') is front-loaded. It is somewhat long and uses packed syntax, but no substantial filler is present.

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?

The description covers legal basis, scope, status vocabulary, live-count behavior, and even an environment-variable prerequisite, which is strong for a read-only reporting tool. However, it omits any explanation of the expected_pubkey parameter and, with no output schema present, does not describe the report's concrete output shape beyond labels and statuses.

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 only parameter, expected_pubkey, has a default empty string and zero schema description coverage. The description never mentions this parameter, its purpose, or how to use it, so the agent receives no guidance on whether or how to populate it.

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 a specific deliverable: an article-labelled EU AI Act/GDPR compliance evidence report with live counts and per-control statuses, scoped to the agent-memory slice. It is explicit about what the tool is not ('EVIDENCE, not a certification'), but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling compliance-related tools such as governance_report or compliance_check.

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 scope statement 'the agent-memory slice only — EVIDENCE, not a certification' provides clear usage context and an implicit exclusion of broader compliance or certification workflows. However, it does not name alternative tools or state explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use conditions.

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