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.