compliance_checker__list_requirements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results include legal basis references, and 'List all' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about pagination, volume of results, or whether the catalog is static versus evaluated per call.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its scope come first and every word carries information.

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 trivial two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it states the resource, the scoping key, and one attribute of the return value (legal basis references). It could say more about result shape, but nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% with both parameters documented and enum'd, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only echoes the framework scoping and adds no format or default guidance beyond it, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 (List) plus resource (compliance requirements) scoped to a framework, which distinguishes it from the sibling compliance_checker__check_compliance and get_compliance_findings tools. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops 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 framework-scoped catalog framing implies when to reach for it (enumerating requirements for a given regulation rather than running a check or comparing frameworks), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named.

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