hr_compliance_check

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

The annotations indicate destructiveHint is true, signaling the action may have side effects, but the description does not disclose this or any behavioral implications. There is no mention of what the compliance check does, whether it modifies data, or what consequences might occur. This leaves the agent without essential safety information.

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, with a clear action statement and a simple argument list. It avoids unnecessary verbosity and is easy to parse. The format is consistent and readable.

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?

The description lacks essential context about what compliance_check actually does, what inputs are expected in detail, or what the output schema means. With an output schema present but undocumented, the agent cannot infer the result format. The tool is just one of many HR-related tools, and the description does not help differentiate or provide operational context.

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 a brief explanation for both parameters: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, but it lacks details such as expected JSON structure, examples, or constraints. The schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but remains shallow.

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 action: 'Run the hr domain agent action compliance_check' with a specific resource and verb. It also mentions the routing context (JWT, tenant, company scope), but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from other HR-related siblings like hr_live_cases or hr_live_advance_application.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states that it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher, which is a technical detail rather than a usage recommendation. The description does not explain typical scenarios or prerequisites for invoking compliance_check.

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