company_compliance

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

The description does disclose a side effect ('persist its obligations'), which is useful, but it fails to explain what persistence means (e.g., whether it creates or updates records), what consequences it has, or any permission/side-effect risks. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only partially covers it.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. However, the trailing 'JSON' is ambiguous and adds little value, and the sentence is somewhat run-on. Still, it stays within a single sentence and is not unnecessarily verbose.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the tool is severely under-documented. The output is partially described but no input coupling or invocation context is given. An agent would not know what bundle_json should contain, why has_payroll is needed, or what horizon_months does, making successful invocation very hard.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond implying jurisdiction. It does not explain the purpose of bundle_json, project_id, horizon_months, has_payroll, registered_for_gst, or the estimate fields. The low coverage requires the description to compensate, and it fails to do so.

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 states a specific action ('Compile the statutory calendar') with clear resources (jurisdiction, obligations) and returns a defined set of statuses (due, reserved, estimated, overdue, treasury tax reservations). It could be better at distinguishing itself from close siblings like company_obligations, but the core purpose is evident.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention any alternative or condition that would favor another tool, such as company_obligations or grc_tax_obligation_scan. An agent has no basis to decide when to invoke this instead of a sibling.

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