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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context not in the annotations: the corpus is rescanned weekly, which tells the agent why freshness-dependent queries resolve here.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what it returns. The second sentence is slightly promotional ('the differentiated capability') but still earns its place by conveying the weekly-rescan justification.

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 low-complexity, zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema to explain, the description is nearly sufficient. Only ordering/pagination semantics beyond the schema's limit param are unaddressed.

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% (days, limit, jurisdiction all documented with defaults and tier caps), so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description adds no additional syntax or format detail, making 3 the correct baseline.

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+resource: regulations that were added or updated recently. An agent can tell it apart from vanilla search_regulations in substance, though it never names the sibling to clarify the boundary.

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 second sentence implicitly says when to use it — when a general model can't answer because the corpus is rescanned weekly — but there is no explicit when-not or named alternative such as search_regulations or get_regulation.

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