regulatory-radar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions return values (compliance level, percentage, gaps, remediation priorities) but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or prerequisites like the payment_ref parameter implying a paid service. The description is too minimal for full transparency.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the first sentence clearly stating the purpose and the second listing the outputs. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words.

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's complexity (6 parameters, including payment_ref and disclosures), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and does not clarify how inputs like sector and jurisdiction affect the assessment. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.

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%, yet the description adds no information about any of the 6 parameters, including required ones like company_name, sector, and jurisdiction. The agent must infer their meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 the tool's purpose: assess a company's compliance posture against regulations. It specifies the resource (company's compliance posture) and the verb (assess), making it distinct from sibling tools like scan_regulations, which focus on regulations themselves.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as scan_regulations or describe_agent. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that only registry-owned regulator URLs are fetched, that timestamps and SHA-256 hashes are reported, that a first baseline is distinguished from a detected change, and that diffs are bounded. It does not mention persistence semantics (persist_snapshot), auth/permission needs, or rate limits, which keeps it below 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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the opening line, with supporting mechanics following in a compact single paragraph. The sentence is dense with comma-separated clauses, but each clause carries distinct information rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the behavioral description is rich. However, for a 6-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, leaving every input parameter undocumented is a meaningful gap that leaves the agent guessing at accepted values.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails to. It never explains jurisdiction, topics, since_days, source_ids, company_profile, or persist_snapshot; 'registry-owned regulator URLs' and 'detected change' only loosely gesture at source_ids and since_days.

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 ('Build a ... regulatory change evidence pack') and enumerates what the pack contains (timestamps, SHA-256 hashes, diffs, deadline calendar), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like monitor_changes or scan_regulations, which also deal with regulatory change detection.

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 the 'Screening only; confirm legal applicability' disclaimer, which is a liability caveat rather than a when-to-use instruction. There is no indication of when to prefer this over scan_regulations or monitor_changes, nor any stated prerequisites such as jurisdiction or source availability.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states it describes capabilities, inputs, outputs, implying a read-only introspection. However, it fails to explicitly state it has no side effects or authentication requirements, which is minimal for a safe tool.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part adds information: subject ('Fleet-standard self-description'), scope ('capabilities, inputs, outputs').

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?

Tool is simple with no params and an output schema exists. Description is minimal but sufficient for a self-description tool. However, it does not hint at output format or structure, leaving some uncertainty for the agent.

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?

Tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage. Per instructions, baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since none exist.

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?

Description clearly states 'self-description: capabilities, inputs, outputs' indicating the tool describes itself. It distinguishes from sibling 'translate_narrative' by being a meta-tool. However, the phrase 'Fleet-standard' is jargon that may not be universal, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'translate_narrative' or any alternatives. The description does not mention context or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses data provenance ('source-linked watch over the curated Viridis dataset, not a live external regulatory feed'), which is real context. It says nothing about auth needs, result shape, pagination, or freshness limits.

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 the core scope front-loaded and the provenance caveat last. No filler, though the `since_days` sentence is a bit terse for the parameter's dual behavior.

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?

The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, and the provenance note is a genuine addition. But with five parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves an agent under-informed about most inputs.

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 compensate, but it only explains `since_days` (covering both directions of the window). The other four parameters — including the required `jurisdiction`, plus `topics`, `request_id`, and `payment_ref` — are left entirely undocumented.

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 and resource: 'Watch curated regulatory effective dates and deadlines in a bounded window.' This clearly distinguishes a monitoring/watch operation from a one-shot scan, though it never names the closest sibling (scan_regulations) explicitly.

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 explains that `since_days` sets a bounded look-back and look-ahead window, which implies when the tool is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance and no when-not guidance relative to scan_regulations or assess_compliance.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description covers pricing ($0.25/call after 10 free calls), payment method (Base USDC, payment_ref), and endpoint path. However, it does not disclose rate limits, idempotency, or authentication requirements beyond payment context.

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 relatively short (two sentences plus pricing) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the pricing and payment details add clutter that could be moved to annotations or separate documentation, reducing overall conciseness.

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?

The description mentions return values (regulations with urgency flags and effective dates), and the output schema exists. Yet, it lacks details on parameter meanings for request_id and payment_ref, and does not reference the output schema to agents, making it moderately complete.

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 description clarifies 'jurisdiction' and 'sector' parameters by giving examples (EU, US, etc.) and mentioning optional sector filtering. However, 'request_id' and 'payment_ref' are not explained; payment_ref is only referenced in payment instructions without defining its role as a parameter.

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 the verb 'scan' and the resource 'regulations' with a specific jurisdiction, and optionally filtered by sector. It distinguishes from siblings like 'assess_compliance' and 'monitor_changes' by focusing on raw regulatory scanning.

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 description implies usage for scanning regulations by jurisdiction and sector, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling tools offer different functionalities, but no direct comparison is made.

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