check_compliance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (searches across domains and returns regulations) and the 'quick' nature, but does not elaborate on output format, limitations, or whether it's read-only. This is adequate for a simple tool but not rich in behavioral detail.

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, front-loaded sentence with a secondary clarifying sentence. Every word earns its place, and it avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 one-parameter tool with a well-explained parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and expected outcome. It also hints at scope ('all domains'), making it complete for the agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 for the only parameter is 100%, with examples and clear guidance ('Describe your system, product, or situation'). The description echoes this but adds little new meaning beyond the schema, justifying the baseline 3.

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's function: 'Quick compliance check' with a specific verb ('get relevant regulatory requirements') and resource (system/situation). It also distinguishes from siblings by noting it 'combines search across all domains', separating it from more targeted tools like query_regulation.

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 provides clear context for when to use it ('Quick compliance check', 'describe your system or situation'), implying it is a broad, fast assessment. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which would merit a 5.

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