compliance_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the tool is known to be read-only. The description adds that it requires DINGDAWG_API_KEY and uses LLM-powered analysis, providing some behavioral context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose what the output looks like, whether any data is sent to external LLM services, or any other side effects. Given the annotation covers the main safety trait, the description adds modest value, warranting a 3.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the authentication requirement stated separately. Every word serves a purpose; no filler or redundant information. This is an example of effective, efficient communication.

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?

For a compliance check tool, the description lacks information about output format, success criteria, or error handling. There is no output schema, so the agent does not know what the tool returns. It also does not clarify how the LLM analysis affects the result or what happens if the API key is missing. Given the tool's complexity (multi-framework, LLM-dependent), this description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in expected behavior.

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%: both 'frameworks' and 'process_description' have descriptive text. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides—it merely restates the framework list. Since the schema handles parameter documentation, the description offers no added value for parameters, aligning with 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Check financial compliance against SOX, GAAP, IFRS, or AML regulations.' This is a specific verb (check) with a defined resource (financial compliance) and a clear scope (those four frameworks). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like financial_analysis or risk_assessment, which focus on different aspects of financial processes.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It only describes what it does, but does not mention when it is the appropriate choice (e.g., when needing to verify compliance) or when to choose an alternative (e.g., risk_assessment for risk-related checks). This leaves the agent to infer usage context, which is inadequate given the presence of similar tools.

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