ln_compliance_report

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral context: current-state data (budget rules, KYC) is always included regardless of the 'since' parameter. However, it does not explicitly confirm the tool is read-only or describe side effects, though 'generate a report' implies no mutations.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without repetition.

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 no output schema, the description adequately states the return is a structured dict and lists what it covers. While it does not detail the dict fields, the listing of components is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output scope.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'since' with relative time values and current-state inclusion, and 'format' with the only supported value 'json'. This adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 generates a structured compliance report and lists all major components (agent identity, transactions, budget rules, KYC, anomaly flags, trust attestations), making it distinct from sibling tools that focus on individual checks.

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 notes the tool is for regulatory compliance export, implying comprehensive use, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like individual check tools (e.g., ln_anomaly_check). No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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