compliance_checker__check_compliance

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by naming the scanning engine and stating the return shape ('gap analysis and action plan'), but it never addresses that this appears to be a long-running network operation (the undocumented-in-description 'wait' semantics), whether it polls or is async, or what happens if the default wait is disabled.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the return value appended. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only place to learn how results come back. It mentions 'gap analysis and action plan' but not the findings structure, IDs, or how to fetch results later via the sibling findings tool — leaving a meaningful gap for a scan-then-retrieve workflow.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the url and framework enum values already fully documented in the schema and adds nothing about the 'wait' parameter's tradeoff (blocking vs. fire-and-forget), so it does not compensate beyond the schema's own text.

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 a specific verb + resource + scope: run a compliance scan of a URL against one of three named regulatory frameworks, using a named engine (GuardBee). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_requirements or compare_frameworks, though it never explicitly names the downstream retrieval tool (get_compliance_findings), so the distinction is inferred rather than declared.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'full compliance scan' suggests this is the entry point before retrieving findings, but the description never says when to use it versus analyze_privacy_policy or compare_frameworks, and gives no prerequisites (does the URL need to be publicly reachable?).

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