dms_legal_requirement

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether authentication is needed, how pagination works (though 'limit' hints at it), or what happens on empty results. The mention of 63 requirements and 119 fields provides some scope but insufficient transparency for a safe agent usage.

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 sentence that is reasonably concise but densely packs numbers and a list of fields. It lacks front-loading of the primary action ('Query') and could benefit from a more structured layout to improve scanability. The length is acceptable but not optimally efficient for quick agent parsing.

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 absence of an output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and differentiate from siblings. It lists output fields from the workbook, giving some idea of results, but does not specify the structure (e.g., is it a list of objects?), pagination details, or how this tool complements the dozen sibling tools. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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% and each parameter has a clear description (e.g., 'Compliance ID (e.g. "CMP-001")'). The description adds context about the register's size and fields but does not enhance understanding of how to use the parameters beyond the schema baseline. The additional context is modest, so 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 queries the Master Compliance Register from a specific workbook, listing the key fields it retrieves. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like dms_legal_register or dms_legal_risk, which may cause confusion when multiple compliance-related tools exist.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dms_legal_register (also a register query) or dms_legal_documents. There is no mention of prerequisites, context for use, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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