aup_check_compliance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the eight gates checked, the three-document join, and the return format (allowed, policy_id, disclosure_id, violations[]). This gives a clear picture of internal behavior without contradictions.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured with a headline and a bullet-like list of gates. It efficiently packs information, though a slightly more concise version could improve readability.

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 is provided, but the description sufficiently documents the return format including fields and per-gate violations. It also explains the overall process (three-document join), making the tool's behavior complete for an agent to understand and invoke.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond schema: it explains that aup_url is fetched by the server, that aup_json is an inline alternative, and that disclosure_json is required. This clarifies parameter usage and relationships.

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: it joins an AUP with a Student AI Disclosure to decide compliance. It lists eight specific gates and the return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools by its unique function of reducing a three-document join to a single allow/deny call.

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 when to use this tool: when a compliance check of a submission against an AUP and disclosure is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools and the description's focus on a single unified check provides clear guidance.

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