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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it enumerates the rule families evaluated and describes the return payload (status, severity counts, violation paths, evidence, citations, remediation).

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by scope of analysis, return shape, and the sibling alternative. No filler sentences.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description needs only enough to orient the agent, and it supplies purpose, analysis scope, return summary, and tool routing. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 every parameter (path, trace, frameworks, include_gaps, input_format, min_severity) is already documented with defaults and enums. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('Check one RECORD trace for violations') and spells out exactly which analyses run (schema conformance, behavioral rules, field-gap analysis) and what comes back. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling 'check_trace_chain for several traces', so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 closing sentence names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it ('for several traces'), giving clear routing guidance. It does not state exclusions such as when to skip gap analysis or when trace vs. path input is preferred, but the schema covers those.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world hint, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it names the specific cross-trace rule families evaluated and states what comes back ('chains found, per-trace reports, chain violations, and overall status'), giving the agent a concrete mental model of output shape and detection scope.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first clause, followed by a compact enumeration of rule families and return values in a second paragraph. It is dense but every element earns its place; the only mild cost is the long mid-paragraph list, which reads more as an inventory than as guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them briefly. Combined with annotations covering the read-only/idempotent profile and a fully documented 7-parameter schema, an agent has enough to call this correctly. The remaining gap is explicit sibling routing to check_trace.

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% and every parameter carries its own description, including enums for group_by, input_format and min_severity, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only marginal semantics, mainly relating the frameworks filter to list_frameworks. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Check a chain of RECORD traces') and immediately clarifies scope: all per-trace rules plus cross-trace rules. That distinguishes it from the sibling check_trace, which operates on a single trace, without needing to open either schema.

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 by the word 'chain' and by the enumeration of cross-trace rules (duplicates, version drift, escalations, overrides, regressions, SAR deadlines). It never explicitly says when to choose this over check_trace, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing multiple traces or a grouping key. The list_frameworks pointer is a useful routing hint but is about a parameter, not usage selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds that the result is a full definition rather than a summary, but says nothing about behavior for an unknown rule_id or any error/lookup semantics.

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 listing the returned sections with zero filler. It is terse to the point of being fragmentary, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With a rich output schema, full annotations, and one required parameter, the description only needs to signal what the tool fetches, which it does. The remaining gap is routing against list_rules rather than return-value detail.

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 the single rule_id parameter already carries an example format (REC-HO-001). The description contributes no additional meaning about the identifier beyond what the schema states, so baseline 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 (get) and resource (one rule) plus the payload contents (description, citations, params, remediation), so the agent knows exactly what a call returns. It does not explicitly name the sibling list_rules, but 'one rule' versus a list is implicit.

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: 'one rule' suggests you already have a rule_id, which in turn implies list_rules is how you discover one. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative is given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds domain context by specifying the semantic content returned (authority_basis prefixes, gap-analysis triggers), but since an output schema exists and enumerates returns, that addition is modest rather than essential.

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 compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and then the payload contents. Every clause earns its place by naming distinct returned data.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be re-described, and zero parameters mean there is no argument behavior to explain. The description covers the remaining gap adequately, though a note on when to consult this catalog before other tools would make it fully self-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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain any argument semantics.

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 names the resource (regulatory frameworks) and enumerates what the listing includes: authority_basis prefixes and the record-py gap analyses each framework triggers. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, but the listing intent is unmistakable. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like list_rules and get_rule, though it does not explicitly say it is the framework catalog versus the rules catalog.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is stated. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the discovery step before calling list_rules or get_rule. Given the sibling set, a single clause about fetching frameworks first would have added real routing value.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only that results come from a 'catalog' and that filtering is optional, saying nothing about ordering, pagination, or the default inclusion of generated GAP rules.

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 short sentence with the resource and its optional filtering front-loaded. No wasted words or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the schema fully documents all four optional parameters with annotations covering safety. The only gap is the lack of routing guidance relative to sibling list/get tools.

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%, and each parameter (scope, category, framework, include_generated) already has a schema-level description. The description adds no semantics beyond 'optionally filtered', so the baseline 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 ('List') and resource ('violation rules in the catalog') with the filtering behavior noted. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_rule or list_frameworks, but the resource is clear enough that an agent can identify it.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered' implies when the filters apply, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_rule for a single rule or list_frameworks for framework discovery. Usage is only inferable from the name and purpose.

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