compliance_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clarifies that the tool returns frameworks with version and certification info, indicating a read operation. It does not disclose auth needs or rate limits, but for a simple query tool, the description is adequately transparent.

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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key details. There is no redundant information, and critical information (verb, resource, examples, extra info) is front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (frameworks with version and certification info) and when to use it (by country). It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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% with a description for the 'country' parameter. The description does not add new semantic details about the parameter beyond stating it's for a country and listing example frameworks, which are return values. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource 'supported compliance frameworks' with concrete examples (BAS, STP, GST, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'compliance_deadlines' by focusing on frameworks rather than deadlines.

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 explicitly says 'for a country', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not list alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling 'compliance_deadlines' is implicitly differentiated. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to select the correct tool.

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