regulatory-radar__assess_compliance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape (compliance level, percentage, gaps, remediation priorities), which is genuine value since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, cost/payment, determinism, data sources, or rate limits — notable given the unexplained payment_ref parameter.

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 tight sentences with the domain tag leading, then purpose, then return values. It is front-loaded and free of padding, though the return-value sentence could be deferred to an output schema if one existed.

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 6-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return values but omits parameter meanings, invocation context, and behavioral constraints. It is adequate to identify the tool but insufficient to call it confidently.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. company_name, sector, and jurisdiction are self-evident, but 'disclosures' (an array of strings), 'request_id', and 'payment_ref' are completely undefined here and in the schema, leaving real ambiguity about how to invoke the 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?

States a specific verb ('Assess') and resource ('compliance posture against applicable regulations'), and the bracketed tag identifies the domain (CSRD/TNFD compliance-as-a-service). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools scan_regulations, monitor_changes, or build_evidence_pack, so an agent must guess which one to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus scan_regulations, monitor_changes, or build_evidence_pack, nor any prerequisites (e.g. whether a prior scan is required). The context in which assessment is appropriate is left entirely to inference.

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