check_compliance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses speed (~5 seconds), that it returns pass/fail per requirement, and that it provides fix instructions. However, it incorrectly claims 'no arguments' while the schema defines two optional parameters, and it does not state whether the operation is read-only (though 'check' implies it).

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 compact (three sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. The phrase 'no arguments' is inaccurate and wasteful, but otherwise every sentence adds useful context such as specific articles and the alternative combined tool.

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?

The description explains what results look like (pass/fail, article-level violations, step-by-step fixes), so return values are covered despite no output schema. It does not mention risk_category semantics, but the schema provides that. The tool is sufficiently described for an optional-parameter check 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add param semantics, and its claim of 'no arguments' is misleading given the optional project_path and risk_category parameters. Schema descriptions already cover both parameters, so the description neither helps nor hurts beyond the baseline.

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 EU AI Act compliance, lists specific articles (Art. 52, 11, 14, 15), and mentions fix instructions. It also distinguishes itself from combined_compliance_report for GDPR+AI Act.

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?

It explicitly directs users to call combined_compliance_report() for combined EU AI Act + GDPR, implying this tool is for EU AI Act only. It does not mention when to prefer this over gdpr_check_compliance, but the name and the mention of EU AI Act requirements provide sufficient context.

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