evaluate_document_compliance

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the check is deterministic field validation over regex rules rather than semantic document understanding, which sets agent expectations about false negatives on unseen formats. No pagination or input-size limits are mentioned.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what it does, followed by returns and a scope caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is redundant with the name or 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still summarizes them usefully. Combined with the safety annotations and the determinism caveat, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the schema_type enum semantics remain unaddressed.

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 67%: strict_mode and document_payload are described in-schema, but schema_type's enum has no description. The description references the schema selection and pattern behavior generically but adds no detail on schema_type choices or how strict_mode interacts with the reported verdict. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Check an extracted document against a declared schema') and enumerates the concrete outputs (missing required fields, pattern violations, confidence score, triage verdict). The sibling tools are unrelated domains (event queue, RAG, approvals), so no differentiation is needed.

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 implied by 'Check an extracted document against a declared schema' but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to an alternative. The closing sentence scopes what the tool is not ('not document understanding'), which helps avoid misuse but stops short of usage directions.

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