compliance_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the read-only, no-LLM nature, that counts are live, that statuses are honest, and the behavior of the optional pubkey parameter, including the fallback to an env var and what happens if neither is set. This is exemplary transparency.

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 not bloated; every sentence adds critical information. It front-loads the core purpose and scope, then logically explains the env var and parameter. The structure is clear and efficient.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the report contains, its scope, the statuses, the env var requirement, and the parameter semantics. An agent can confidently invoke it without ambiguity.

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 the description must explain the parameter. It does so thoroughly: `expected_pubkey` is described as hex, optional, binding `summary.integrity_verified` to the signing key, and its default via `INSPEXIMUS_RECEIPT_PUBKEY`. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states precisely what the tool does: it generates an EU AI Act/GDPR compliance evidence report with live counts and per-control statuses. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by scoping to the 'agent-memory slice only' and explicitly disclaiming certification, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 specifies when to use the tool (to obtain compliance evidence for the agent-memory slice) and implies when not to (it's not a certification). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for switching, so it lacks the 'alternatives' aspect of a 5.

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