compliance_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (score out of 100, pass/fail per check, fix tips), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about whether the scan is non-mutating, whether it requires the target site to be publicly reachable, rate limits, or latency/cost. Adequate but incomplete for a network-fetch tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the enumerated checks and the return format. The nine-item list is dense but each item carries information; no filler sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must cover returns — and it does (score, pass/fail, fix tips). For a one-parameter read-only scanner that is nearly complete, with the remaining gap being preconditions/permissions and any notion of scan cost or rate limits.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the url field and gives an example. The description adds only the loose notion of 'a website' and no format, scheme, or constraint details beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb (Scan) and resource (a website) and enumerates the nine checks performed, which makes the scope concrete and largely separates it from check_security_headers (only one of the nine checks). However, it never explicitly names or contrasts with siblings, so an agent must infer the overlap itself.

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?

Usage is implied by the content ('EU compliance essentials'), which tells the agent roughly when this tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no guidance on choosing this over check_security_headers or the other siblings. Nothing is misleading, but nothing is stated either.

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