APAC Reg Notes

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world operation, and the description adds meaningful context: it costs $0.02 USDC on Base via x402 and may include an annotation when available. It does not contradict the annotations, though it stops short of explaining the payment flow in detail.

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 two sentences with no wasted text, and the core lookup purpose is front-loaded. Cost and availability details follow compactly.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, this is mostly adequate: it covers purpose, cost, and possible annotation. The main gap is the undocumented id semantics, which the schema and description both leave unclear.

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 0% description coverage for the single required id parameter, so the description must carry the burden. It only restates "by id" and does not clarify the expected identifier format, such as notice ID, slug, or numeric value.

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 and resource: "Get one APAC regulatory notice by id." The phrase "one ... by id" clearly distinguishes this from sibling list/search tools such as latest_notices and search_notices.

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 implied by "by id": an agent should use this when it already has a notice identifier. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus search_notices or latest_notices, nor does it explain how to obtain an id.

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 readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond them: a $0.005 USDC charge on Base via x402, and that output is bilingual EN/zh-Hans title plus summary. It does not explain what happens on payment failure or when no substantive notice exists, which keeps it from 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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is returned, what input is needed, and what it costs. The return content is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 properly covers return shape (bilingual title and summary), input (none required), and cost/auth via x402, which is exactly what an agent needs before calling. It stops short of describing the empty-result or payment-failure path, and does not resolve overlap with the notice siblings.

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?

There is a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, but description burden is minimal here since the schema already carries the HK/TW/JP/IN enum. The description confirms the parameter is optional (required set is empty) and restates the allowed values, adding marginal but correct meaning.

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 names a specific resource and scope: the single most recent substantive APAC regulatory notice, returned with bilingual EN/zh-Hans title and summary. That is far clearer than the bare name 'headline'. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling 'latest_notices' or 'get_notice', so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which one to pick.

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 only guidance is 'No arguments required (optional jurisdiction HK/TW/JP/IN)', which is parameter information rather than a when-to-use rule. With five siblings that all concern notices, the absence of any statement about when this tool is preferred over latest_notices, search_notices or get_notice is a real gap.

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 readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds a materially important behavior the schema does not carry: the call costs $0.01 USDC on Base via x402, which an agent must know before invoking. It still omits freshness/latency, what happens if payment fails, and result ordering, but the paid-call disclosure is a genuine value-add.

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, zero filler, with the content scope front-loaded and the payment constraint trailing as a secondary but necessary fact. Nothing repeats the title or restates the schema.

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, 3 undocumented parameters, and no routing guidance against four overlapping siblings, the definition does not give an agent enough to pick this tool confidently over search_notices or notices_digest. The payment note is helpful but the selection and parameter story remains incomplete.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and says nothing about limit, topic, or jurisdiction. The two enum parameters are partly self-documenting, but the description never explains the meaning of 'latest' in terms of limit default, ordering, or what jurisdiction filtering excludes — a clear gap against the 0% coverage signal.

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 resource (latest APAC financial/AI/data regulatory notices) and names the actual issuing regulators (HKMA, SFC, Taiwan FSC, Japan FSA, SEBI), so an agent knows exactly what content comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like search_notices or notices_digest, which the "latest" qualifier only hints at.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite four sibling tools (search_notices, get_notice, notices_digest, weekly_brief) that overlap heavily. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is a browse-latest feed rather than a filtered search or a single-record fetch.

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 cover read-only safety and closed-world scope, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: the call costs $0.03 USDC on Base via x402, so the agent knows payment is involved. It stops short of explaining the payment flow (wallet, failure mode without funds) and adds a useful 'not legal advice' disclaimer, but the cost disclosure is the kind of auth-adjacent detail that earns 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?

Three short fragments with no filler, and the content of the digest is front-loaded before the cost note. The telegraphic style is dense but readable; 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?

For a paid tool with no output schema, two undocumented parameters, and an unclear time/scope window for the digest, the description is too thin. An agent still doesn't know what period the digest covers, how to actually pay, or what filters do.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters, yet it never mentions 'sector' or 'min_impact'. Worse, the word 'sectors' appears as an output field, which risks confusing it with the input parameter of the same name; only the min_impact enum is self-explanatory from the schema.

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 identifies the resource (an annotated digest) and its contents — EN/zh-Hans summaries, impact level, sectors, entities — but uses a noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must infer what the tool actually does (aggregate? summarize recent notices?). It also fails to distinguish itself from the close sibling weekly_brief, another digest-style tool.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus weekly_brief, latest_notices, search_notices, or headline. The only supplementary sentences are a liability disclaimer and a price, neither of which tells the agent when this is the right choice.

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 readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: every call costs $0.02 USDC on Base via x402. That payment requirement materially changes invocation decisions (batching filters, avoiding speculative calls) and is not in any structured field. It does not disclose pagination, default limit, or billing granularity (per call vs. per result).

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, zero waste, with the capability stated first and the cost constraint immediately after so the agent sees price before schema. Nothing is padded or restated from the name.

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 zero-required-parameter paid search with no output schema, the description covers what can be searched and what it costs, which is the minimum viable set. It omits result shape, default limit/pagination, and whether an empty query is legal, leaving real gaps for a tool that charges per call.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does map most params to purpose (q = keyword with EN/ZH language support, jurisdiction, topic, since = date), which is real added value over bare property names, but 'limit' is never mentioned and no format or matching semantics (phrase match, AND/OR across filters) are given.

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 (search regulatory notices) and enumerates the searchable dimensions (keyword, jurisdiction, topic, date). It distinguishes itself by implication from the retrieval/digest siblings (get_notice, latest_notices, weekly_brief), but never names them, so an agent must infer the routing itself.

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 word 'Search' plus the filter list implies this is the query-by-criteria tool as opposed to latest_notices or headline, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Nothing tells the agent whether to prefer get_notice for a known item or notices_digest for a summary.

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 readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool costs $0.05 USDC on Base via x402 and is not legal advice. These are material facts for invocation that are not encoded in structured fields.

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 short sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core identity before the disclaimer and payment terms. Every sentence carries distinct, useful information.

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 low-complexity single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers identity, disclaimer, and pricing but omits what the brief contains (sections, language pairing, coverage window) and how the week parameter behaves. An agent can call it but cannot predict the return shape or default time window.

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 0% and there is one parameter (week) with only a regex pattern in the schema. The description never mentions the week parameter, its format, or whether it is optional/defaultable, leaving the agent without semantic guidance for the sole input.

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 identifies the resource: a weekly bilingual APAC AI & fintech regulation brief. It implies retrieval of a periodic digest, which is distinct from the notice-oriented siblings. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like notices_digest or latest_notices, so the differentiation is left 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling notice/search tools, nor any explanation of the week parameter's role or default behavior. The agent must infer all usage context from the one-line purpose statement.

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