Search SFC enforcement actions including fines, suspensions, bans, and prosecutions. Search by company, person, or violation type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Optional year filter (e.g. 2025) | |
| query | Yes | Search term: company name, person, or violation type |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations include readOnlyHint=true, confirming a safe read operation. The description adds context about the types of enforcement actions covered and search fields, but does not discuss limitations, pagination, or result format. Since annotations already cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.
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 short, focused sentences. The first sentence states the core function, the second clarifies search dimensions. No extraneous 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?
Given the simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and search scope, though it doesn't detail result structure. The read-only annotation and parameter descriptions fill remaining gaps, making it sufficiently complete for its complexity.
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?
Both parameters (query, year) have descriptions in the schema covering 100% of parameters. The description's mention of search dimensions ('company, person, or violation type') largely restates the query parameter description, adding no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
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 'Search SFC enforcement actions' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates included categories (fines, suspensions, bans, prosecutions) and search dimensions (company, person, violation type). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_regulation or compliance_check.
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?
It provides clear context that this tool is for searching enforcement actions, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Given the sibling tools, the context is sufficiently specific to imply usage, but explicit alternative guidance is missing.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: querying regulations, searching enforcement, checking compliance health, assessing risk, getting SOPs, etc. However, checklist_lookup and query_regulation overlap somewhat in general regulatory questions, and compliance_check vs compliance_score could be confused, though descriptions help.
Tool names are all lowercase with underscores, but the pattern is inconsistent: some start with verbs (get_license_guide, query_regulation, search_enforcement), while others are noun-led (compliance_check, checklist_lookup, risk_assessment). This mixed convention reduces predictability.
10 tools is well-scoped for an SFC compliance assistant, covering a range of tasks from regulation lookup to risk assessment and enforcement search without being excessive. Each tool earns its place.
The tool surface covers the core domain lifecycle: regulatory knowledge, compliance checking, risk assessment, enforcement research, SOP guidance, license info, and updates. Minor gaps like direct form submission or detailed compliance item management exist, but the set is near complete for an advisory/analysis tool.