TracePass DPP templates (regulatory schemas)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only reference data.' It adds behavioral details about what each action returns and the fields included, which goes beyond annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a purpose sentence, a read-only/usage sentence, then a clear bullet-like list of actions with their arguments and return value summaries. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple actions, many fields) and the vague input schema (generic args), the description provides all necessary information to correctly use the tool: action enum, category enum values, and detailed return field descriptions. No output schema is needed because return values are fully described.

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 input schema only defines 'action' with an enum and 'args' as a generic object. The description compensates by fully specifying the shape of args for each action: for list, no args; for get, a 'category' parameter with all 12 enum values listed. This adds critical meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to discover regulatory field schemas for DPP categories. It uses specific verbs ('discover', 'list', 'get') and identifies the resource (DPP templates). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on templates/schemas, not passports or products.

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 provides explicit usage: 'Use this to advise on requirements before creating products/passports, and to gap-check a draft against the rules.' It also explains when to use each action (list vs get). However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use or compare to sibling tools like tracepass_passports.

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