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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation via 'Returns' and enumerates content categories, but it does not disclose potential edge behaviors such as error handling, required permissions, or pagination. This is minimal but not misleading; a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 exactly two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the core functionality and the second providing usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the purpose, content scope, and usage context. It could be slightly more detailed about the exact structure of the returned data, but it is sufficiently complete for typical agent decision-making.

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 100%, with both parameters (category and regulation_id) already described and enumerated in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Returns structured, machine-readable regulation details including specific articles, obligation classifications, risk levels, and evidence requirements.' This names a specific verb (returns) and resource (regulation details), and the mention of articles/obligations/risk levels distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_deadline or compare_jurisdictions.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to understand the detailed requirements of a specific regulation,' providing a clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks the full exclusion criteria of a score 5.

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