Compliance-evidence bundle

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: the output is commit-stamped, findings are grouped by stable code, and the bundle carries a tamper-evident sha256 integrity hash — useful properties an agent cannot infer from 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?

Two sentences, no filler. The artifact and its contents are front-loaded, and the 'Evidence, not a gate' distinction is placed at the end where it acts as a routing cue rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does so thoroughly by listing the bundle's components plus the integrity hash. The main gap is routing: it does not explain how this differs operationally from the verification siblings, which an agent choosing among eleven tools would want.

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?

There is a single optional parameter whose schema description is 100% covered, including the served-directory constraint and the default. The description adds no syntax, scope, or example beyond that, so the schema carries the full burden and baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Generate) and a well-defined artifact (commit-stamped compliance-evidence bundle), then enumerates its constituents: per-validator verdicts, findings by code, CDD score, ALCOA+ attributes, fix history, sha256 hash. The clause 'Evidence, not a gate' implicitly separates it from docguard_guard, though no sibling is named outright.

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 line 'Evidence, not a gate — it reports state without failing' tells the agent this is the reporting path rather than a pass/fail gate, which is a real usage signal. However, it never says when to prefer this over docguard_verify_evidence, docguard_score, or docguard_verify_claims, and states no prerequisites or timing (e.g., after a guard run).

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