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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: content is returned only when keywords are supplied and a match is found, content is a snippet not full text, and the call is billed/authorized via the caller's OpenAny gateway credentials. It does not describe pagination or result ordering, keeping it just below top marks.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and then layers the empty-body rule, the keyword/content behavior, the snippet caveat, and the billing note. Every sentence adds information, though the credential/billing paragraph is slightly tangential to the tool's function.

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 12-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return semantics (snippet vs full text), the required-non-empty body, and billing context. Missing only result ordering/pagination and sibling differentiation, which keeps it from a 5.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine cross-parameter meaning beyond the schema: that omitting keyword switches to filter-driven selection (region, validity, authority, dates, etc.) and that keyword presence controls whether content snippets appear. This clarifies how the parameters interact rather than just restating them.

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 ('Searches for a list of regulations') and names the detail API as the sibling it is not. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related yuandian_post_open_rh_fg_zq_search sibling, leaving some ambiguity about which regulation search to pick.

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?

Explicitly notes the request body must not be empty and that keyword is optional, explaining the two usage modes (keyword search vs filter-only browsing). It also routes to the regulation detail API for full text. The only gap is no guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling search tool.

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