Framework coverage, including what cannot be evidenced

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses a key non-obvious behavior: 'the not-evidenced articles are part of the honest answer and must be shown'. It doesn't explicitly state side effects, but the list/report nature implies read-only behavior.

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 two terse sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded and the usage trigger plus critical behavioral requirement each earn their place.

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 one-parameter reporting tool with an output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and what the parameter values are. The output schema handles return structure, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

The schema provides no description or enums, but the description enumerates all valid framework values (DORA, NIS2, NCA-CCC, NESA-IAS). This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage and tells the agent exactly what the single parameter accepts.

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 states a specific action: list every article for a regulatory framework with evidence status, and enumerates the four frameworks (DORA, NIS2, NCA-CCC, NESA-IAS). The title adds 'including what cannot be evidenced', making the scope explicit and distinguishing it from generic compliance check tools.

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 explicitly says to use it 'when the user asks how much of a regulation the tool covers', which is a clear usage trigger. It doesn't mention when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the context is specific enough.

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