compliance_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'scans' and 'returns findings', but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, whether it modifies data, error handling, or output format specifics. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 front-loaded and efficiently structured in a single sentence, with zero wasted words. It directly states the tool's function, what it scans for, and what it returns, making every part of the description earn its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and output overview but lacks completeness for a tool with behavioral complexity (e.g., scanning for compliance). It doesn't cover error cases, security implications, or detailed return values, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool use by an agent.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('data' and 'auditType'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify 'data' structure or 'auditType' implications). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('scans data for PHI exposure') and resources ('HIPAA compliance audit'), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on coding, drugs, providers, or other domains. It explicitly mentions what it detects (SSN, MRN, DOB patterns) and what it returns (findings with severity, score, recommendations), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for HIPAA compliance audits involving PHI data scanning, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'general' audit type vs. 'hipaa', or how it differs from sibling tools like 'ner_extract' for entity recognition). It lacks clear exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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