disclosure-compiler__compile_disclosure

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: deterministic (idempotent), cited, no fabrication, gaps remain explicit. This provides good transparency, though it could mention whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. The deterministic hint is particularly valuable.

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, focused sentence with a contextual prefix in brackets. It is concise and front-loaded, but the structure could be improved by separating parameter details or usage notes.

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 the complexity (5 params, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the framework parameter options, the structure of company_facts, the role of payment_ref, or the output format. Only the core action and two inputs are described, leaving major gaps.

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% (no descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. It covers only 2 of 5 parameters (company_facts, ghg_result) and omits framework, options, payment_ref. The description adds meaning for those two but leaves significant gaps, which is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool.

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 verb 'Compile' and the resource 'deterministic, cited compliance disclosure draft', along with the inputs (company facts, optional GHG result) and key constraints (no fabrication, gaps explicit). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_frameworks and verify_result by focusing on the compilation action.

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 optionally a GHG-ledger result, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like list_frameworks or verify_result, nor when not to use it. Basic context is provided, but lacking exclusion or alternative guidance.

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