compliance_checker__check_compliance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (gap analysis plus action plan) and names the underlying GuardBee engine, but says nothing about whether the scan is long-running, what happens when wait=false, network egress implications, or rate/cost limits — all material for an unbounded web scan.

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?

Two tight sentences (~30 words) with the action and target front-loaded and the return value second. No filler, no redundancy, and the return-value sentence is valuable given the absence of an output schema.

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 3-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, frameworks, and return shape, which is the minimum viable set. It still omits execution semantics (sync vs async, expected duration, whether a separate findings call is required), which an agent would need before invoking it on a live URL.

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 100%, so url, wait, and the framework enum are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description repeats the framework values but never mentions the wait parameter or its async implications, so it adds essentially no parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (scan a URL for regulatory compliance) and names the three supported frameworks, so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_compliance_findings or analyze_privacy_policy, leaving the agent to infer that this is the entry-point scan.

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 word 'full' hints that this is the comprehensive scan, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Nothing tells the agent whether to call this first and then get_compliance_findings, or how it relates to compare_frameworks/list_requirements.

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