compliance_checker__list_requirements

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the disclosure burden. "List all ... for a framework" plus "with legal basis references" conveys that this is a non-mutating enumeration returning requirement entries annotated with legal citations, which is genuinely useful. It stops short of stating whether the result set is a fixed catalog, whether it is paginated, or whether it can be empty for an unsupported framework.

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 scope appear first. The trailing "with legal basis references" is slightly ambiguous about whether it describes returned content or a capability, which keeps it from a 5.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is close to adequate. Since no output schema exists, though, it should say more about the shape of a returned requirement (identifier, title, legal basis, severity) rather than just hinting at legal references.

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% and both parameters carry enum documentation, so the schema already fully specifies framework and severity. The description adds only that the framework scopes the result set and that "all" requirements are returned, implicitly framing severity as an optional narrowing filter. That is baseline value, not extra.

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 ("List all compliance requirements") scoped to a framework, which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like compliance_checker__check_compliance, get_compliance_findings, or compare_frameworks, so an agent must infer that this is the static catalog lookup.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative. The word "List" implies a read-only enumeration versus the sibling check_compliance (an assessment run), but that contrast is never stated and must be inferred.

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