get_compliance_report

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and 'built from one real check' plus the per-source ok/unavailable/error table add real context: this performs an actual external check that can partially fail. It still does not explain the cost/side-effect implied by readOnlyHint=false, nor whether a report is persisted or reusable.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then lists report sections compactly. It is dense but each clause enumerates a distinct output component, which earns its place given there is no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, enumerating the report contents (identity, screens, risk score with fired rules, ranked findings, source status table, hash) is genuinely necessary and is done thoroughly. What is missing is operational context: when to use it versus sibling checks and what the non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior implies.

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% across all 10 parameters, so the schema already documents identifiers, formats and the check_id alternative. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource ('Per-entity report') and enumerates exactly what the report contains, so an agent knows this produces a comprehensive per-entity artifact rather than a single score. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like check_entity, get_risk_score, or sanctions_screen, which it partly subsumes, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many overlapping siblings (check_entity, get_risk_score, sanctions_screen). The phrase 'built from one real check' hints at a trigger but never says when an agent should pick this over a cheaper single-purpose tool.

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