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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about return values (primary-source URLs and confidence tags), but lacks details on ordering, potential side effects (though unlikely for a search), or any access requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 sentences with the first leading with the action and scope and the second stating the output. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no unnecessary details.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and output, while the schema covers parameters, resulting in a fairly complete picture. However, without annotations or explicit usage guidance, a note about it being a read-only search or result ordering would make it fully 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage, including descriptions for all parameters, examples for jurisdiction and lens, and a default for limit. The description adds context about the corpus and legal lenses but does not significantly enrich parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 searches 'Anteroom's tracked corpus of AI-relevant regulatory provisions' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools (which handle framework history, partnerships, and vendor commitments) by emphasizing its search and corpus nature.

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 about what the tool does and its scope across jurisdictions and lenses, but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. The context is enough to infer its intended use, but no exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

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