Monitor recent regulatory changes in a jurisdiction over a trailing window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | No | ||
| since_days | No | ||
| payment_ref | No | ||
| jurisdiction | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'monitor', which suggests read-only but is not explicit. No disclosure of side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or idempotency. For a monitoring tool, agents need to know if it's safe to call repeatedly.
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 a single sentence with no fluff, but it achieves conciseness at the expense of completeness. It could be restructured to include parameter hints or usage notes without becoming verbose.
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?
With 4 parameters, 0% parameter description coverage, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description provides insufficient context for correct invocation. It does not explain the trailing window behavior, parameter defaults, or return value expectations.
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 only mentions 'jurisdiction'. It does not explain 'since_days' (likely the trailing window length), 'request_id', or 'payment_ref'. The description fails to add meaning beyond the parameter names.
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 monitors recent regulatory changes in a jurisdiction over a trailing window, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'assess_compliance' (evaluation) and 'scan_regulations' (broader search).
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 ongoing monitoring via 'trailing window', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or any exclusion criteria. No context about prerequisites or limitations.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: scanning regulations, monitoring changes, assessing compliance, and self-description. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., assess_compliance, monitor_changes). No deviations.
With 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for the server's purpose of regulatory monitoring. It covers essential functions without being over or under.
The set covers core workflow (scan, monitor, assess) but lacks tools for detailed regulation retrieval, compliance history, or alert configuration, leaving noticeable gaps.