check_combination_permitted

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions preventing prohibited inferences but does not describe behavior (e.g., return type, error handling, side effects). This is insufficient for a regulatory 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 short but omits crucial details. It could be more informative without excessive length.

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 regulatory complexity and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return values, error conditions, or prerequisites, making it difficult to use correctly.

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 has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter meaning, such as what 'forbiddenSourceClasses' or 'otherSourceId' represent, leaving the agent to guess.

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 checks if combining data from two sources is permitted, with specific regulatory references (HIPAA, COPPA, GDPR Art 9). This distinguishes it from sibling check tools like check_purpose_permitted or check_usage_permitted.

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 implies use in compliance contexts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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