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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the auth gate and its ordering, and the fact that the response reports corpus JSON load state. No return format or pagination detail beyond the schema, so not a 5.

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 the blocking prerequisite before the tool's own behavior, which is the right ordering for an auth-gated tool. Slightly dense with the sibling enumeration, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Covers the prerequisite, what is returned (registry entries plus corpus load status), and where to go next. With no output schema and only two fully documented parameters, this is nearly complete; only return shape and result-size behavior are left implicit.

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% for both parameters (limit, max_chars), so the schema already carries their meaning. The description adds nothing about limit/max_chars semantics, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('List regulations in the registry') plus a distinctive extra output ('whether corpus JSON is loaded'). The routing sentence implicitly separates it from search_regulation/search_regulations, though it does not explicitly say this is the unfiltered enumeration and those are for filtered lookups.

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 an explicit prerequisite chain (call connect(email) and connect_verify first unless already signed in) and names the follow-up alternatives (search_regulation, search_regulations, list_workflows for a named process). It does not state a when-not-to-use condition, but the routing makes the intended workflow clear.

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