tutor_card_coppa_check

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

The description discloses the return format (success or error with reason) but does not clarify side effects or read-only nature. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden; missing explicit statements about non-destructiveness or required permissions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler, with the core logic and return value clearly stated upfront.

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 simple validation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core rule and return shape. However, it omits parameter guidance and usage boundaries, leaving gaps in practical completeness.

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 has two parameters (url, document_json) with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of their purpose or expected format. The agent cannot infer what these parameters represent for correct invocation.

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 precisely states the tool enforces a specific COPPA conditional rule, naming the condition (audience.age_range_min < 13) and required outcome (data_privacy.coppa_compliant must be true). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover other compliance checks.

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 checking COPPA compliance but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations (e.g., it likely requires certain fields in the card). No alternatives are suggested.

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