check_compliance

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool returns a detailed compliance report, which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, error behavior, or any constraints beyond the obvious check operation.

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 only two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, and the second sentence adds meaningful return-value information without redundancy.

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 validation tool, the description is adequate: it states the input, purpose, and return concept, and the nested payment schema is fully documented. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it would be stronger if it described the shape of the compliance report or what invalid results look like.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the PayBySquare and banking standards context, but it does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides; the 'detailed' parameter's meaning and default are already documented in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('payment data compliance with PayBySquare and banking standards'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that generate, decode, or verify roundtrips. The first sentence alone lets an agent know what this tool does.

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 purpose implies the tool should be used when payment data needs validation against PayBySquare and banking standards, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not name or contrast alternatives like generate_paybysquare or decode_paybysquare.

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