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

Because annotations are absent, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the registry-based resolution, URL-domain filtering, explicit missing/unavailable states, and the research-not-legal-advice caveat, which are genuinely non-obvious behaviors. This is strong transparency for a read-style research 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 information-dense sentences plus a short JSON example. It front-loads purpose, then filtering and behavior, with the example last; no sentence is 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 two-parameter tool with no required fields and no output schema, the description covers the core invocation details: jurisdiction semantics, limit via example/default, registry-based resolution, filtering, and the global-list fallback. It does not enumerate the shape of the returned regulatory context or enforcement records, but that is not necessary for correct invocation; the missing/unavailable-state note helps set 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 coverage is only 50%: limit has no schema description. The description partially compensates with a concrete example (including limit: 5) and by noting that jurisdiction is optional, but it never states that limit controls the number of records returned. Since the schema doesn't document limit and the description doesn't fully disambiguate it, this dimension lands at a 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get gambling regulatory context ... plus recent source-linked enforcement records'), which immediately identifies the tool's function. It further clarifies scope through the approved regulator registry and exclusion rule, making it clearly distinct from the casino/bonus sibling tools.

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: jurisdictions resolve through an approved registry, records are filtered by approved domains, and omitting jurisdiction yields a bounded global list. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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