check_compliance_38fz

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool is deterministic and free, but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as whether it modifies any state, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The output is a verdict, which is clear, but other behaviors are hidden.

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 a single concise sentence that conveys the core function and output. There is no wasted text. However, it could be slightly expanded to include prerequisite information without becoming verbose.

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?

While the schema and output schema cover parameters and return values, the description lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., requiring results from sibling audit tools) and how the collected features relate to the input. For a tool in a compliance domain, this gap could hinder correct usage.

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% with each parameter having a description. The tool's description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'url' as context, 'erid' as token). The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 that the tool performs a deterministic compliance check against 38-FZ, outputting a verdict of 'ok', 'issues', or 'insufficient_data'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'audit_ad_page' (which audits a page) and 'verify_erid' (which validates an ERID token) by focusing on compliance verification based on collected features.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it should be used after collecting features (possibly from other audit tools), but this is not stated. No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are given.

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