check_regulatory_compliance

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the analytical basis (sector-dependent corridors, the specific articles applied) but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what the verdict/output shape is, or how ties or boundary cases near a threshold are handled. Notably, it advertises a display-deadline check under Article 23 while the schema exposes no date parameters, leaving that behavior unexplained.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the legal reference up front and the two checks enumerated after a colon. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and every clause carries information.

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 four-parameter calculation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about what a caller receives (a boolean verdict, a threshold percentage, flag details) and about the Article 23 deadline check that no parameter appears to support. The legal grounding is solid but the operational picture is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the sector enum and its -20% / -25% corridor rationale. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination ('Calculer la conformité d'une offre financière') and anchors it to a named legal instrument (Décret n° 2-22-431) with the exact articles covered. The two checks performed (abnormal low/excess offer detection under Articles 44 & 45, display-deadline verification under Article 23) make the scope concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, audit_submission_checklist, which is why this is not a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for evaluating a bid amount against the administrative estimate. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as audit_submission_checklist or execute_procurement_intent, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. that both amounts must be known in advance).

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