check_compliance

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It notes '@slow' as a performance characteristic but does not mention other behavioral aspects such as how data is fetched, whether it provides real-time or cached data, or any permission requirements. The output schema may cover return format, but the description itself offers limited behavioral insight.

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, uses a clear structure with a summary line and a 'USE WHEN' section, and every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (10 optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and usage scenarios effectively. However, it omits guidance on how parameters interact (e.g., whether framework and platform are mutually exclusive), and the '@slow' hint could imply performance constraints without elaboration. Still, it is largely complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add further detail beyond the schema; it only lists examples of user intents. 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 clearly states the tool's function as a compliance posture assessment and lists specific outputs (framework pass/fail rates, failing controls, risk acceptances). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on compliance frameworks and providing example queries in the USE WHEN section.

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 USE WHEN section provides explicit example queries covering common use cases (PCI compliance, compliance gaps, failing controls, risk acceptances, HIPAA, CIS, frameworks). However, it does not explicitly state situations where alternative tools (e.g., assess_risk, security_overview) should be preferred instead, so it falls short of full 5.

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