generate_compliance_report

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output contents (criterion mapping, percentages, executive summary, remediation plan) but does not describe side effects (e.g., data persistence, auth requirements, rate limits). It implies a pure generation operation, but details are sparse.

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 two sentences, efficiently stating what the tool does and its key capabilities. No extraneous content, and the most important information (verb, resource) is front-loaded.

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 4 parameters, one nested object, and multiple format options, the description provides a good high-level overview but lacks detail on the required input ('results') and output structure. Given no output schema, more detail on return format would improve completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value: it lists the formats and mentions optional remediation, which overlaps with the schema's 'format' and 'includeRemediation' descriptions. No additional explanation of the 'results' object structure beyond the schema.

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 verb 'generate', the resource 'compliance reports', and lists specific formats (VPAT, WCAG, ADA, Section508) and contents (mapping, percentages, executive summary, optional remediation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that primarily audit or export raw data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or prerequisites. For example, it doesn't mention that 'results' must come from a prior audit, which is critical context for correct invocation.

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