grc_compliance_audit

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

The description adds context about routing through the platform dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is useful behavioral information not in the annotations. However, it does not describe the actual side effects beyond the generic 'run action', and the destructive nature is only known via the annotations, not the description itself.

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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence for the action, one for routing context, and a bulleted parameter list. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It provides enough context about the action's purpose and routing. The only minor gap is that it doesn't elaborate on what a compliance audit entails, but the action name and domain make this reasonably clear.

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 description provides brief explanations for both parameters ('Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string'), which is valuable since the schema has no descriptions. However, the explanations are minimal and lack examples, expected formats, or constraints, leaving some ambiguity about what constitutes a valid input.

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 runs the `compliance_audit` action from the grc domain, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools. The action name itself conveys the purpose (compliance auditing), making it immediately understandable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or contrast with similar tools (e.g., company_compliance). The user is left to infer when this is the appropriate choice.

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