compliance.audit_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, requires a specific scope, is governed by Arbiter policy, and returns a ProofLink receipt, which goes beyond minimal expectations. No contradictions found.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and supplemented with essential scope and side-effect context. No filler or repetition.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, behavioral constraints, and side effects. It could potentially describe the return format or the receipt more, but the provided information is sufficient for invoking the 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain any. Baseline is 4 for zero-param tools, and the description correctly omits irrelevant parameter details.

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 returns the live compliance audit summary (specific verb+resource), and explicitly identifies itself as an alias for get_compliance_status, distinguishing it from sibling tools. This meets the 5-level standard.

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 specifies the intended audience/context (CISO/auditor review) and identifies the read-only nature, but does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative selection guidance beyond naming the alias. Thus it's a 4.

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