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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the possible ~1 minute latency, the async fallback returning status "running" plus an answer_id for regaffairs_get_answer_status, that sources are 1,400+ regulator datasets with linked citations, and that each call consumes one question on the user's plan and is saved to history. The only gap is that nothing warns whether an in-flight answer can be reused or re-asked without consuming another credit.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and exclusions before the source inventory; every sentence carries routing or behavioral information. The long list of covered regulators and source names is the least essential portion and could be trimmed given regaffairs_list_covered_regulations exists, but nothing is redundant.

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 an open-world, quota-consuming research call with an output schema, the description covers routing, latency, the async status contract, credit cost and persistence. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to handle both the immediate-answer and running cases correctly.

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%, so question, industry and jurisdictions are all already documented in the schema, including the ISO-code example format and the advice to include CAS/EC numbers and market. The description reinforces the question style via examples but adds no parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (answers a regulatory question) with an explicit scope: questions needing reasoning across several sources, jurisdictions or industries, or ones no industry tool covers. It names the sibling family it is not meant to replace (single-fact industry checks) and gives concrete example phrasings, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use criteria (multi-source, multi-jurisdiction, cross-industry reasoning), an explicit when-not-to-use list enumerating exactly the single-fact queries the check_* siblings handle (list status, classification, exposure limit, ingredient status, MRL, register entry), and excludes legal advice, trial design and submission strategy.

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