ForgePoint Signal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It claims to return 'high-impact' changes, but the schema allows any impact level, creating inconsistency. The description does not clarify sorting order, pagination, or behavior with no results, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 very concise with two sentences. The first states the action, the second provides use case guidance. Some valuable information is missing (parameter details), but the brevity is appropriate for the information provided.

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 has two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description should explain parameters, return format, and behavioral details. It only provides purpose and use cases, missing essential context for correct invocation, such as how to set impact_level and limit, and what the response contains.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only vaguely hints at impact filtering via 'high-impact' but does not explain the limit or impact_level parameters, their roles, or that they are optional. This provides negligible value beyond the schema itself.

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 states a clear purpose: get the most recent high-impact regulatory changes sorted by impact level. It distinguishes from siblings like get_regulation_detail and search_regulations by focusing on recency and impact sorting. However, the phrase 'high-impact' is slightly misleading because the impact_level parameter accepts low and medium as well.

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 mentions use cases: 'Ideal for daily briefings or monitoring material changes requiring immediate attention.' This provides context on when to use the tool, though it does not specify when not to use or mention alternatives among 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It partially does by listing output contents, but omits details on error behavior (e.g., invalid entry_id), side effects, or rate limits. For a read-like tool, this is acceptable but incomplete.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists key output fields. It is concise with no unnecessary words, though splitting into two sentences could improve readability slightly.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It covers purpose and output fields, but lacks context on error handling and entry_id source. As a basic retrieval tool, it reaches a minimum viable level.

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 parameter 'entry_id' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'entry_id' is, its format, or how to obtain it. This forces the agent to infer from context, reducing usability.

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 'Get complete detail for a specific regulation entry' and lists specific fields included (summary, law/code section, effective date, source link). It differentiates from siblings like 'search_regulations' and 'get_recent_by_impact' by focusing on a single, specific entry retrieval.

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 when needing full details for a known entry ID, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. For example, if searching or browsing, other siblings would be more appropriate. No exclusions are mentioned.

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 full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('preview'), states update frequency, but does not disclose any potential side effects, authorization needs, or data freshness guarantees.

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, front-loaded with action and resource, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: scope, domain, update frequency, sources.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain return format. It mentions 'preview of 5 changes' and coverage area, but does not specify output fields (e.g., date, title, summary). With zero parameters, more detail on what the preview contains would improve completeness.

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 zero parameters, so no additional semantics are needed. The description adds value by specifying the fixed count and domain of the preview.

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 states a specific verb ('preview') and resource ('US regulatory changes'), with a distinct scope ('5 most recent', 'estate, trust, gift, inheritance tax law'), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_regulations or get_regulation_detail.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_regulations for broader queries or get_regulation_detail for full text). The description says 'free preview' but does not explain its limitations or prerequisites.

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 partially compensates by stating the return format ('full entries with plain-English summaries and source links') and update frequency ('Updated daily'). However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or limits like pagination.

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 concise sentences with no redundant phrasing. Key information is front-loaded: action, filters, and output features are presented efficiently.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides core functional details but lacks clarity on how multiple filters interact (AND/OR), result ordering, or pagination. It is adequate but not exhaustive for a complex search tool.

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 parameter descriptions are absent (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by listing possible values for jurisdiction ('federal/state'), category ('estates/trusts/tax/gift'), and impact_level ('low/medium/high'). However, it omits the 'limit' parameter entirely.

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?

Description clearly states action ('Search the full ForgePoint Signal regulatory database') and specific filter dimensions (keyword, jurisdiction, category, impact level). It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_recent_by_impact, get_regulation_detail, preview_regulations) by being the general-purpose search.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusion criteria, and no example of appropriate contexts. The description only states what the tool does without advising on use cases.

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