check_compliance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('report') and specifies which certifications are checked (First Aid, Police Check). It does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, but the verb implies no modification. Missing details on authentication or rate limits, but acceptable for a simple reporting tool.

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: three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by context and usage. No unnecessary words or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the purpose, usage context, and what certifications are checked. It does not explain the parameter or the output format, but the output schema compensates. Minor gap in parameter explanation, but overall adequate.

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 the description does not mention the only parameter 'days_ahead'. The phrase 'expiring soon' vaguely relates, but the parameter's meaning, default, and effect are not explained. The description fails to add value beyond the schema's property name and type.

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's purpose: reporting carer certifications that are expired or expiring soon, with a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('carer certifications'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on compliance, while siblings handle client management, scheduling, or audit logs.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool ('before assigning visits or for a weekly compliance review') and provides context about mandatory certifications. It does not mention when not to use it or directly compare to alternatives, but the positive guidance is clear and helpful.

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