list_frameworks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond that: only "active" frameworks are returned, and filters are "exact" (equality, not fuzzy) matches. It says nothing about pagination, result size, or ordering, which for a list tool is a meaningful remaining gap.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and scope stated before the filter details. Every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter, read-only, output-schema-less list tool this is largely sufficient: it states what is returned, that filters are optional, and that matching is exact. The only substantive omission is result-set behavior (pagination/limits), which an agent would need to know before assuming a complete enumeration.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it partially does: it labels both parameters as optional and specifies exact-match semantics, which the schema does not convey. It does not explain the expected string format for sector (id vs. name) or jurisdiction, leaving ambiguity that the bare string schema cannot resolve.

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?

"List active regulatory frameworks" gives a specific verb (list), resource (regulatory frameworks) and scope qualifier (active). This is clearly distinguishable from a singular get_framework retrieval, though the description does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 only implied: the word "List" plus optional filters suggests a browse/enumerate scenario, and the absence of required parameters hints that calling with no arguments returns everything active. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-prefer-get_framework or search_compliance_qa guidance and no exclusions.

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