check_scope_compliance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It reveals what rules are checked, but it does not mention what the return value or result format looks like, possible side effects, error behavior, or whether it is a read-only operation. For a validation tool, this is a substantial gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with a clear purpose, followed by a compact enumeration of checks. There is no filler or irrelevant information.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description has the full burden of informing the agent of the tool's outcome and behavior. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, report, throws error) and does not discuss limitations or edge cases, leaving the agent uncertain about post-call handling.

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%; both parameters and all nested properties are described. The description's mention of 'word limits, required sections, allowed/forbidden topics' merely restates the schema and adds no deeper semantic value, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Validate') with a specific resource ('agent output') and a specific criterion ('defined scope contract'). It explicitly lists the types of checks (allowed/forbidden topics, word limits, required sections), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_output or check_hallucination_risk.

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 implies usage when you need to check output against a scope contract, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. No contrast with sibling tools is provided.

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