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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful disclosure beyond them: it returns key facts plus a summary, and it carries a mandatory presentation instruction to always show the user the regulations.ai url.

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?

Two tight clauses, no filler, and the identifying purpose is front-loaded before the return-value and url guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return payload (facts, summary, url) and mandates surfacing the url to the user. It is close to complete for a single-param read tool; only failure/error behavior for an invalid id is unspecified.

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 has 100% description coverage and only one parameter, and the description merely restates that the id is one returned by `search`. Per the baseline rule, 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the parameter 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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve), resource (one document), and scope (one returned by `search`, addressed by id). It names the sibling tool that produces the id, so an agent can immediately distinguish it from `search`, `get_regulation`, and `search_regulations`.

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?

Clearly establishes the precondition that the id must come from `search`, which routes the agent correctly. It does not state when not to use it or contrast directly with `get_regulation`/`search_regulations`, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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