Scope SOC 2 to your company from eight questions

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: fully local, deterministic, no account, no network call, no model. It also discloses the important caveat that results are prioritization guidance, not scope reduction, which an agent could easily misunderstand.

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 value, then adds the prerequisite call and the critical scope caveat. Every sentence earns its place; there is no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 a full input schema, an output schema, prerequisite guidance, and behavioral disclosure, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The key caveat about not reducing scope is explicitly stated, and return-value details are covered by the output schema.

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 100%, with every parameter described and all eight using enums, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds context about the questions collectively but no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full 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?

The description names a specific action (answering eight questions) and a clear resource (the 33 SOC 2 Common Criteria), and explains exactly what the tool returns: tailored meaning and priorities for each criterion. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like applicability_questions, which is positioned as a prerequisite rather than the same action.

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 clearly instructs the agent to call applicability_questions first and warns that the tool does not remove criteria from scope, which prevents a critical misuse. It doesn't explicitly enumerate alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions beyond the prerequisite, but the context is clear enough for routing.

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