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

The description adds that matching is against title and summary, and results are sorted by date descending. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description does not detail pagination, exact match semantics, or case sensitivity, leaving some behavioral 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 consists of two concise sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence defines the scope and data sources, the second clarifies usage. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description effectively explains the tool's domain and typical use cases. It covers the main filtering dimensions (query, date range, category, regulator, jurisdiction) and ordering. Minor omissions like pagination handling or result format do not significantly hinder agent understanding.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds minimal additional context beyond what the schema provides, such as 'Keywords matched against title and summary' which essentially repeats the schema for 'query'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema carries the full burden.

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 specifies the tool searches regulatory publications from Canada, US, UK, and EU, and states it returns most recent matches first. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_regulatory_change (single item) and recent_regulatory_changes (just recent), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 for questions about what a regulator has published on a topic, or what has changed in a date range,' providing clear context. However, it does not offer explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., for single document retrieval) or directly mention sibling tools as alternatives.

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