coverage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states 'Read-only, no LLM' and explains the evidence-not-certification limitation, plus what each state means in terms of store/library artifacts. This is strong, although it does not mention output size or performance characteristics.

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 about 100 words, front-loaded with the core purpose, then defining the four states and the caveat. Every sentence adds information, and the all-caps state names aid scanning. It is slightly dense but not bloated.

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 zero-parameter read-only report with no output schema, the description explains what the matrix contains, the meaning of each state, and the key limitation. It does not detail the exact return structure, but the state definitions and row references give enough context for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 input schema has zero parameters)Skip, so there is no ambiguity. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly avoids discussing parameters that do not exist.

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 identifies the tool as 'the obligation matrix for THIS store' covering EU AI Act and GDPR duties, with four defined states. This is a specific resource and clear function, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling reporting tools like compliance_report or governance_report.

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 implies usage for checking which duties are covered, and explicitly warns 'never a certification', giving a when-not. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of the many sibling reporting tools, nor does it name any alternatives.

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