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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It usefully discloses that the return includes jurisdiction, scope, a law link, and reaches[] with country/region/industry cohorts, adding behavioral context beyond the annotation. It does not cover missing-regulation behavior, but for a plain read operation with readOnlyHint that is a minor gap.

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 with no filler; the return content is stated first and the downstream use second. Every clause adds information and the structure is front-loaded.

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 single-record reader with readOnlyHint and only one required string parameter, the description adequately describes the payload: jurisdiction, scope, law link, and reaches[]. It lacks an explicit statement about not-found behavior or how to obtain valid slugs, but those are partially implied by the sibling find_regulations. Overall sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 documents context thoroughly but leaves the required slug undocumented, and the tool description never explains what a regulation slug is or where to find one. With 50% schema coverage and no compensation for the required parameter, the agent is left to infer the slug format. This is the clearest weakness of the definition.

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 opens with 'One regulation,' clearly signaling a single-record retrieval operation rather than a search or list. It enumerates the returned facets (jurisdiction, scope, law link, reaches[]) and defines reaches[] concretely. It does not explicitly name find_regulations as the search sibling, so it misses the last bit of sibling differentiation.

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 usage guidance is the downstream instruction to use reaches[] with find_providers, which helps after the call but does not address when to choose get_regulation over find_regulations or other get_* tools. There is no when-not or alternative-selection rule, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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