disclosure-compiler__compile_disclosure

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

With no annotations, the description provides good behavioral transparency by disclosing that the tool is deterministic, cited, and does not fabricate missing datapoints. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether it reads/writes state, which would further assist an AI agent.

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 compact paragraph that front-loads the tool purpose and standards in brackets. It avoids irrelevant detail, but could be slightly tighter (e.g., remove the leading bracket phrase). Overall well-structured for its length.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and behavior but lacks details on output format, the 'options' parameter, and error handling. It provides a solid foundation but is not fully complete for a complex compilation 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'company_facts' and 'ghg_result' (optional), but does not describe 'framework' (implied by standards list) or 'options'. This provides partial meaning but leaves one parameter undocumented.

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 specifies the verb 'Compile', the resource 'disclosure draft', and the scope: from company facts and optional GHG-ledger result. It mentions supported standards (ESRS E1/SEC/IFRS S2/TNFD) and key traits: deterministic, cited, no fabrication. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_frameworks or verify_result.

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 implies usage when you have company facts and want a compliant disclosure draft, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., if you only need framework info, use get_framework). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance is provided.

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