compliance_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavioral outcome (returns report with specified fields) and adds that it is free, which is useful. However, it does not mention any side effects, authorization requirements, or read-only status explicitly, though 'Get' implies a safe operation. This is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that state purpose and a notable feature (free). No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately specifies the input and the output structure by listing the returned fields. It also gives a relevant qualifier ('Free'). It could be improved by noting if any prerequisites exist, but overall it is complete for this simple tool.

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 schema already documents agent_id with a descriptive placeholder and example (100% coverage). The description adds no further parameter-specific detail, 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and names the exact resource 'EU AI Act compliance report' for a specific target 'an agent'. It also enumerates the key return fields (risk level, transparency declaration, audit summary, trust status), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like trust_check or get_agent.

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 implies clear context: it is for retrieving an EU AI Act compliance report, which is distinct from trust checks or general agent lookups. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of full guidance.

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