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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description layers on traits they cannot express: an auth prerequisite, zero quota cost ('cheap: one call, no quota'), and call-time freshness ('built from the loaded corpus at call time'). This is exactly the added context the annotations leave open.

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, front-loaded with the blocking prerequisite, then purpose, then next steps. The em-dash enumeration is dense but every element is load-bearing; slightly packed rather than wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the payload contents, and it covers entry conditions and exit paths. Nothing needed to call this correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description's mention of connect(email) belongs to a sibling tool, not this one.

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 concrete verb+resource: orientation for the loaded corpus, enumerating exactly what it returns (regulations loaded, unit counts, data_as_of, gaps, per-module first-call hints). An agent can distinguish it from list_regulations or search_regulation without opening a 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?

Explicitly sequences prerequisites (connect(email) then connect_verify unless already signed in) and names the follow-on alternatives (list_regulations, search_regulation, list_workflows). Both the when and the what-next are stated rather than implied.

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