ForgePoint Signal

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

The description adds useful behavioral context: 'Updated daily from the Federal Register and IRS Internal Revenue Bulletin.' However, it says 'high-impact' while the impact_level parameter allows low/medium/high, creating ambiguity about default behavior. It does not clarify sorting order or what items are included when impact_level is omitted.

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, each earning its place: purpose, use case, and data freshness/sources. No fluff or repetition, effectively 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?

Despite its simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description is incomplete for invocation. It omits parameter explanations and default behavior, leaving gaps in how to filter by impact level or limit results. The daily-update note is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 0%, and the description does not mention 'limit' or 'impact_level' at all. The phrase 'high-impact' vaguely hints at impact_level but doesn't explain the enum values or the limit parameter, leaving the agent without necessary invocation details.

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 gets recent regulatory changes sorted by impact, with a specific resource (regulatory changes) and action (get). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_regulation_detail, search_regulations, and preview_regulations by focusing on recency and impact sorting.

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 it is 'Ideal for daily briefings or monitoring material changes requiring immediate attention,' providing clear context for when to use it. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose already differentiates it from siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context about data sourcing (Federal Register and IRS Internal Revenue Bulletin) and lists return fields, but it doesn't mention error conditions, authentication requirements, or explicitly state this is a read-only operation. Moderate disclosure.

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 concise sentences. It front-loads the primary action and outcome ('Get complete detail for a specific regulation entry'), with no redundant or filler phrases.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields and data source. It is mostly complete, though it could mention what happens when the ID is invalid or not found, which is a minor gap.

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 one required parameter entry_id with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'specific regulation entry' but does not clarify what entry_id looks like (e.g., format, example, or how to obtain it). Since schema coverage is low, the description was expected to compensate but does not.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get complete detail' and clearly identifies the resource ('specific regulation entry'). It lists the included fields (full summary, affected law, effective date, source link), which distinguishes it from siblings like search_regulations (search) and preview_regulations (preview).

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 makes it clear this tool is for retrieving details for a specific regulation entry, implying you need an entry_id. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., 'use search_regulations to find entries first') or provide exclusion scenarios. Still, the context is strong enough for a 4.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data scope, update frequency, and sources, which is helpful. However, it does not mention whether the preview is read-only (though implied), any rate limits, or the output structure. Given the simple nature, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. No unnecessary repetition.

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 no-param, simple preview tool, the description covers the essential aspects: data scope, recency, update frequency, and sources. However, it could briefly mention that the preview is a list and how it differs from the sibling tools. Still, given the simplicity, it's mostly complete.

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 tool has no parameters, so the schema covers everything trivially. The description adds context about what the preview returns, which is beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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's function: retrieving a preview of the 5 most recent US regulatory changes. The verb 'Get' is specific, and the resource is well-defined (US regulatory changes in estate, trust, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by the preview nature and limited count.

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 implies usage for a quick, free overview of recent changes but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings like get_regulation_detail or search_regulations. There are no exclusions or alternative guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable context: returns full entries with plain-English summaries and source links, and is updated daily from the Federal Register and IRS Internal Revenue Bulletin. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it omits details like default result limits or pagination behavior.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'Search', and covers scope, filters, return value, and data source. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers return format and data updates sufficiently. It omits explicit mention of default limit or pagination, which is a minor gap but acceptable for a search tool with a limit parameter in the schema.

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 0%, but the description compensates by enumerating valid values for jurisdiction (federal/state), category (estates/trusts/tax/gift), and impact level (low/medium/high), which maps directly to schema parameters. The limit parameter is not explained, but four of five parameters receive meaningful context.

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 the full regulatory database, listing specific filter dimensions (keyword, jurisdiction, category, impact level) and return content (full entries with summaries and source links). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recent_by_impact, which focuses on recent results, and get_regulation_detail, which presumably retrieves a specific regulation.

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 implies use for broad searching across the database but does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, so the agent must infer from sibling names.

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