check_disclosure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the country list and the compliance-label concept, indicating a read-only validation, but it doesn't say whether it returns pass/fail, a reason, a severity, or whether it errors on unknown captions. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and the resource, with the country list as a compact parenthetical. Efficient and readable, though it could use a clarifying sentence about the return.

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-param compliance checker with no annotations, no output schema, and no enum on country, the description is too thin. It conveys the purpose but leaves the return shape, country-code format, and error behavior undefined, requiring the caller to probe.

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 coverage is 0% and there are two required parameters (caption, country). The description mentions 'caption' and lists expected countries, which slightly informs the country param, but doesn't specify format (e.g., ISO code vs. name), caption length, or what happens with unsupported countries. This fails to compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (check/disclosure) and resource (sponsored caption) with the exact regulatory concept being verified (paid-partnership label). It's clear what the tool does, though the sibling tools (campaign_math, engagement_check) are in different domains, so cross-sibling differentiation is less critical.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor what conditions trigger the check. It implies a compliance-checking use case but doesn't state prerequisites or what a caller should do with the result. This falls short of 'clear context'.

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