get_compliance_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the score is real-time, ranges 0–100, includes a breakdown, and mentions a compliance threshold. However, it lacks details on auth requirements, side effects, error handling, or whether results are cached. This is adequate for a simple read tool but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value, no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it returns (score and breakdown), score interpretation (≥85 compliant), and real-time nature. It could elaborate on the breakdown structure (e.g., list of framework scores), but overall it is sufficient.

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 no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the output (score range, breakdown, compliance threshold). Given no parameters, the description effectively compensates.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'compliance health score', clearly indicating what the tool does. It also mentions a breakdown by framework, which distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_frameworks' tool that lists frameworks rather than providing a score.

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 implicitly implies when to use this tool (to get a compliance score), but it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or provide any usage exclusions. The sibling 'list_frameworks' is related but no guidance on choosing between them.

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