Get your compliance dossier

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds substantive context: each call is recorded in the account's audit log, the 90-day cap and pagination behavior, and the required auth scopes/session types. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure above the structured hints.

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?

Front-loads the return content, then layers window/pagination, audit-logging, and auth requirements in tight, information-dense sentences. Every sentence earns its place for a tool with this much operational nuance.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return shape (row-per-article with metadata, terms, attestation, flags). Annotations cover safety, and the description covers pagination, window cap, audit logging, and auth requirements. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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%, so from/to/cursor are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the 90-day window and mentions pagination via _meta.next_cursor, but does not add format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides. 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 and resource (returns the account's compliance dossier) and enumerates the exact return shape: one row per licensed article with metadata, licence terms, on-chain attestation, and specific regulatory flags (EU AI Act Article 53, CDSM Article 4(3), TDM reservations). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_audit_events, article_53_attestation, and verify_license.

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?

Provides clear operational context: a 90-day window cap, pagination via _meta.next_cursor, and explicit auth requirements (buyer API key with 'audit' scope, buyer session, or Opedd connector sign-in). It does not, however, explicitly compare this tool to alternatives such as get_audit_events or article_53_attestation, so no exclusion guidance is given.

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