RegusciLabs Documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world. The description adds real value beyond them by stating the content is published/public and that no authentication is required, which is useful behavioral context. It stops short of describing return format or 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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Efficient, though the trailing enumeration of content categories is somewhat list-like rather than informative.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, 100% schema description, and no output schema, the description supplies what is needed: what is read, its public/published scope, and the no-login condition. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the single 'path' parameter is already fully documented in the schema (including the llms.txt/sitemap.xml source and no-private-path constraint). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 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 (Read) and resource (published RegusciLabs information) and enumerates the content domains covered. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_information, so an agent must infer the difference (direct path read vs. query).

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the sibling search_information is never referenced. The only usage-adjacent statement is 'No login needed,' which is an auth note rather than a selection rule.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds meaningful context by clarifying the result nature — source links and excerpts rather than generated claims — which tells the agent not to expect synthesized answers.

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 the tool does and immediately qualifying the return content. No padding.

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 four-parameter tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, language scope, and return nature, but says nothing about result limits or pagination behavior, leaving gaps an agent would need to fill from the schema alone.

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 only 25%, so the description should compensate, but it only loosely implies the query and enumerates the two locales (already captured by the enum). The limit cap and the cursor's same-query/same-locale constraint are not reinforced or clarified in the description.

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 (search public RegusciLabs content) and adds scope (Spanish or English). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling read_information, leaving the search-vs-read boundary to inference.

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 only implied by the word 'search' and the bilingual scope; there is no statement of when to reach for this versus read_information, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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