combined_compliance_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'no arguments, no setup, under 10 seconds, free,' describes detection scope ('AI frameworks and personal data flows'), and explains the return format ('pass/fail per article with a prioritized fix list'). This is solid behavioral context, though it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, which is implied by 'detects.'

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 front-loaded with a strong call to action and efficiently packs key facts: scope, speed, cost, detection targets, output structure, and sibling replacement. The sentence about fines adds persuasive context but is not strictly necessary for tool invocation; however, it reinforces urgency and value. Overall, it's tight and well-ordered.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly describing the return value: 'pass/fail per article with a prioritized fix list.' It covers the tool's scope, performance, and positioning relative to alternatives. It does not describe edge cases or how the optional parameters affect results, but the schema already documents those parameters, so the description is sufficiently complete for a scan 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%, and each parameter is fully explained in the schema (e.g., 'Omit entirely or pass '.' to scan the current working directory'). The description adds no new parameter information beyond saying 'no arguments,' which is consistent with all parameters being optional with defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 a specific action: 'Run this before your next deploy' and 'One call reveals every EU AI Act + GDPR gap in your codebase.' It explicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings by saying 'Replaces separate scan_project() and gdpr_scan_project() calls,' making it unambiguous what this tool does and how it differs.

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 gives a clear when-to-use instruction ('Run this before your next deploy') and explicitly names the alternatives it replaces ('scan_project() and gdpr_scan_project()'). This provides concrete guidance for selecting this tool over siblings.

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