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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Search' and mentions the output ('stable obligation IDs'), but it does not explain pagination, authentication, or any constraints. This is adequate but minimal for a search 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?

The description is two concise sentences that cover purpose, filters, and return value. Every sentence adds value and no words are wasted.

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 3-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the key essentials: scope, filters, and output type. It could be enhanced by mentioning how returned IDs can be used with related tools like obligation_trace, but it is otherwise 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description merely paraphrases these filters ('regulation, topic, or article') without adding extra meaning or format details, matching the baseline for 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 the tool's function: 'Search regulatory obligations across DORA, MiCA, AMLR.' The verb 'search' is specific, and the resource is uniquely defined by the regulation names. It does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, so it misses a perfect score.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when needing regulatory obligations from DORA, MiCA, or AMLR, with optional filters. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools such as obligation_trace, so no when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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