Compliance Signal Scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds transparent caveats: it's a signal scanner, not proof, and mentions specific compliance frameworks. It does not disclose potential external dependencies or rate limits but adds value beyond 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?

The description is three sentences: purpose, scope, and limitation. It is front-loaded with the core action, uses no unnecessary words, and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear annotations, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and limitations. It omits potential nuances like response format or error handling, but the output schema likely handles that. Almost complete.

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?

The single parameter 'url' is fully described in the schema as a public trust/security/compliance/policy URL. The description adds no additional meaning for this parameter beyond what the schema provides, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 defines the tool's action (scan a public page) and resource (compliance signals), listing specific standards and terms. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on compliance posture signals, not other checks like headers or 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 provides clear use context ('before you claim a vendor supports a particular compliance posture') and lists covered signals, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. It gives sufficient context for typical use.

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