Compliance Signal Scan

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent. The description adds important caveats: it is a 'signal scanner, not proof of certification or legal sufficiency,' and lists signals scanned. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with purpose and usage, followed by a list of scanned signals and a caveat. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 presence of output schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete: it covers purpose, when to use, what is scanned, and limitations. No gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

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% for the single 'url' parameter. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the type of URLs acceptable (public trust, security, compliance, policy pages) and listing what signals are scanned, enhancing the schema's basic description.

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 scans public compliance/trust pages for enterprise buying signals, listing specific items like SOC 2, ISO 27001. It distinctively targets compliance posture verification, differentiating it from siblings like check_endpoint or check_pricing.

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 specifies when to use: 'before you claim a vendor supports a particular compliance posture.' It also clarifies what it is not ('signal scanner, not proof'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives.

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