Compliance coverage check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses it is a mapping tool for design coverage and not legal advice, but does not state whether it performs reads or writes, what happens to data, or any authentication requirements. The behavioral context is minimal.

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, concise, and front-loaded with the verb 'Map' and the resource. Every word serves a purpose without redundancy or fluff. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., list, map, status), nor does it define 'regulatory anchors' or 'guardrail components'. The agent lacks enough context to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 adds meaning by listing the jurisdiction enum values and describing 'feature' as 'optional feature keywords'. However, it does not detail the expected format or allowed values for 'feature', and the jurisdiction enum values are already in the schema. The description adds some value but not fully comprehensive.

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 states the tool maps jurisdictions and feature keywords to regulatory anchors and guardrail components. It enumerates jurisdiction values (us, eu, etc.) and specifies the scope ('in this design system'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_by_regulation' or 'recommend_component', so it falls 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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the tool produces a coverage map for design and is not legal advice, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context. Sibling tools like 'find_by_regulation' or 'recommend_component' are not mentioned as alternatives.

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