Get an overview of the Velvoite regulatory corpus.
Returns document counts by source, regulation family, entity type, urgency distribution, obligation summary, and date range.
Call this FIRST to orient yourself before running queries. No parameters needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context about the returned statistical summaries and date range, but the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already cover safety and scope. It does not disclose potential rate limits or other behavioral traits, but the tool is a simple read-only overview, so the added detail is moderate.
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 concise sentences: first states the purpose, second lists outputs, third gives usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
Given the tool is a zero-parameter overview with an output schema present, the description fully covers what it returns, when to use it, and that no parameters are needed. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.
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 has 0 parameters, so the description's note 'No parameters needed' is sufficient. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description clearly states this, adding minimal but necessary confirmation.
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 states 'Get an overview of the Velvoite regulatory corpus' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the output categories (counts by source, regulation family, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_document or list_documents, which serve different purposes.
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 instructs 'Call this FIRST to orient yourself before running queries,' providing clear usage context. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but for a zero-parameter overview tool this is sufficient. No exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource (obligations, documents, enforcement, Finnish statutes, CJEU cases) with clear parameter differences. Minor overlap exists between get_obligations and get_canonical_obligations, but descriptions explicitly differentiate them.
All tools consistently use verb_noun patterns: get_ for retrievals, search_ for queries, list_documents, and audit_taxonomy. No mixed casing or inconsistent verb styles are present.
At 26 tools, the surface exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, the large number of specialized search/get tools could be consolidated without losing functionality.
The API covers the full regulatory compliance workflow: company profile, obligations, deadlines, documents, enforcement, and multiple legal sources (EU, Finnish, CJEU). Some Finnish/KHO tools return URLs requiring web fetch rather than direct data, which is a minor but by-design gap.