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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, it adds a 90-day coverage window, a 25-result-per-call cap, and newest-first ordering. The 25-result cap is a useful rate-limit disclosure even though it sits oddly with the schema's `limit` maximum of 50; it does not contradict the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by the intended usage pattern and hard limits. No filler or repeated schema text.

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 read-only paged list endpoint, it covers the key operational details: time window, result cap, ordering, jurisdiction option, and the recurring-agent cursor flow. It relies on the schema for offset/limit mechanics, which is acceptable, and the only notable gap is the unresolved 25-vs-50 limit discrepancy.

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?

Since the input schema already documents all four parameters at 100% coverage, the baseline is 3. The description earns a 4 by giving `since` cursor semantics (store newest publishedDate and pass it back) and warning of the effective 25-result cap beyond the schema's limit bounds.

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 a concrete resource (regulatory changes), a specific operation (everything published since a given date), an optional jurisdiction filter, and an ordering (newest first). The `since`-cursor framing makes it easy to tell apart from the sibling `search_regulatory_changes` without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly says this is for scheduled or recurring agents and prescribes the exact cursor pattern: store the newest publishedDate and pass it back as `since`. It doesn't name the alternative search tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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