crosswalk

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

No annotations exist, so description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that mappings include overlap classification (FULL/PARTIAL/NEW) and practitioner notes. It also reveals that source data is maintained externally. However, it does not mention any restrictions, permissions, or more detailed output expectations.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then framework list, then usage guidance, then source hint. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence carries important information. A minor trim of the framework list could improve conciseness.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers key aspects: mapping behavior, classification, list_all_frameworks fallback, and data source. It could mention that results are returned as a mapping list, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant semantic value: it explains the interaction between from_framework and from_reference (searches across all if from_framework omitted with from_reference), that to_frameworks filters targets, and that list_all_frameworks overrides all other parameters. This exceeds the schema's brief descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Map a regulatory requirement to its equivalents across other frameworks.' It enumerates covered frameworks and provides context about mapping classification, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like classify_use_case or list_regulations that perform different functions.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use whenever a user has work in one framework and needs to know what carries over to another.' It also identifies high-leverage scenarios and explains the list_all_frameworks fallback for unsure users. This provides strong usage context.

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