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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: what each result contains (key facts plus a short snippet) and the requirement to surface the regulations.ai url to the user.

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 sentences, zero waste: the first sentence covers capability and filters, the second covers the return payload and the user-facing url obligation. Well front-loaded.

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 explains the return shape (facts, snippet, url) and notes the free-tier limit indirectly via the schema. It is complete for a search tool, though pagination behavior and what happens when nothing matches 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already carries a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the same facet names (keyword, jurisdiction, status, type) without adding syntax, format, or default-value detail.

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 and resource with scope: 'Search AI regulations across 160+ jurisdictions by keyword, jurisdiction, status or type.' The breadth claim and field list make it clearly distinguishable from get_regulation (single record) and compare_regulations (comparison).

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?

Usage is implied by the field list and the 'always give the user that url' directive, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as get_regulation for a known record or compare_regulations for side-by-side analysis.

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