Get Compliance Evaluation

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about the data sources (SEC filings, market data, exchange rules) and credit cost. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it does not discuss pagination or performance.

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?

Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, scope, and cost. No redundancy or extraneous information. Could be slightly more concise but is well-structured.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It covers the tool's comprehensive nature and cost. It is complete enough despite not mentioning prerequisites, which are likely minimal.

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% with parameter 'ticker' described. The description does not add further detail about the parameter, but none is needed. Baseline of 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 it 'Get full compliance rules evaluation for a company' and lists specific rules evaluated (Nasdaq/NYSE deficiency detection, bid price tracking, delinquent filing detection). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools, as no other tool focuses on compliance.

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 use for thorough compliance checking and mentions cost (25 credits). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but, given no direct compliance siblings, this is sufficient. Could be improved by stating when not to use.

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