cms_document_compliance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions data structure (55 types, 3 tiers) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, authentication requirements, or return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, dense sentence that packs significant information (55 types, 3-tier hierarchy, owner) without redundancy. It is efficiently front-loaded, though splitting into two sentences might improve readability slightly.

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 has 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the tool returns (list or single mapping), how the tiers are ordered, or what 'indicative owner' means in practice. For a compliance mapping tool, more context about output structure is essential.

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% via parameter descriptions, providing good examples for each parameter. The tool description adds extra value by explaining the tier structure (T1 internal policy, T2 Bangladesh law, T3 global standard) and the 'indicative owner' concept, which is not present in the schema. This enriches understanding beyond the basic parameter descriptions.

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 it is a 'compliance mapping for ERP document types (55 types) in 3-tier order', specifying the resource (document types), verb (mapping), and unique context (three-tier hierarchy including T1, T2, T3). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cms_check_compliance or cms_list_requirements, which serve different purposes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for finding which compliance tier a document type belongs to, it does not clarify when to prefer this over cms_check_compliance or cms_search_policy, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or context.

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