compliance_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating 'search and return', but does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior or disclose any side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements. It adds some value by mentioning citation metadata but lacks full transparency.

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 two sentences long, each adding value. The first sentence states functionality, the second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words 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?

Given no output schema, the description briefly mentions returning 'most relevant passages with citation metadata', but does not detail the output structure (e.g., fields, format, pagination). For a search tool, more specificity on the return value would improve completeness.

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% with both 'query' and 'top_k' having descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches Canadian financial-services regulations, listing specific sources (OSFI, PIPEDA, FINTRAC, Quebec Law 25), and returns relevant passages with citation metadata. The verb 'search' and resource 'Canadian financial-services regulations' are specific, and there are no sibling tools to distinguish from.

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 says 'Use this tool whenever the user asks about Canadian financial regulation, compliance, AI/data governance for Canadian financial institutions, AML/ATF, operational risk, model risk, or related topics.' This provides clear guidance on when to use, even though no alternatives exist.

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