policy-impact-mapper

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

It mentions 'pure pattern analysis — no LLM, instant results' as a behavioral trait, but lacks disclosure of limitations, error handling, or edge cases. With no annotations, more transparency is needed.

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 (3-4 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value. No wasteful words.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should specify output structure more clearly. It mentions impact scores and extracted items but not format, leaving some ambiguity.

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 both parameters are fully described in schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, meeting but not exceeding expectations.

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 analyzes regulatory/policy text to map impact across sectors, specifying extracted items like compliance requirements and impact scores. It distinguishes itself from siblings by its specialized focus on pattern analysis.

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 lists use cases (compliance agents, regulatory monitoring, policy change digests) providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like legal-search.

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