map_sector_obligations

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a non-mutating operation, and the description adds useful output-scope context by saying it returns active frameworks plus the published sector description and does not invent article-level duties. It does not disclose other behavioral details such as error handling, pagination, or accepted sector formats, so it adds some but not rich context beyond annotations.

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 two short sentences with the core operation front-loaded. Every sentence contributes either the operation scope or a useful boundary statement, and there is no unnecessary wording.

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 one-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the main purpose and indicates what is returned. However, it does not explain how to format the sector input or what 'active' means, and it provides no guidance on expected output structure beyond the published sector description. Additional parameter context would make it complete for reliable invocation.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter, 'sector', with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate for the missing semantics. The description only restates the concept of a sector and gives no format, examples, accepted values, or naming conventions. This leaves the single parameter largely undocumented.

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 and resource: it lists active frameworks mapped to a sector and includes the published sector description. The mapping scope distinguishes it from a generic framework listing, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or explain how it differs from list_frameworks. The final sentence clarifies a boundary, but purpose is still clear.

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 using this tool when you need sector-specific active frameworks, and 'Does not invent article-level duties' provides a scope exclusion. However, it does not name alternatives such as find_crosswalk, get_framework, or search_compliance_qa, nor does it state when another tool should be preferred. Usage is therefore implied rather than fully guided.

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