get_compliance_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it reports readiness status, defines 'incomplete' precisely with the missing fields, and states the downstream 412 consequence. This is transparent for a read-only check, though it doesn't mention side effects or permissions.

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 core purpose, then provides essential detail about the incomplete condition and downstream actions. No waste.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what it returns (ready/incomplete with unset fields) and why it matters. It is complete for its simple scope.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly focuses on output semantics instead.

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: 'Pre-flight compliance check for outbound.' It specifies what it reports (ready or incomplete) and the specific fields checked, distinguishing it as a pre-condition checker for outbound actions.

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 when to use this tool by calling it a 'pre-flight check' and noting that send_email_and_record and record_outreach_with_inquiry refuse with 412 if incomplete. This gives clear context for usage, though it doesn't name alternative check tools or explicit exclusions.

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