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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is stateless, records no decision, and leaves no dashboard timeline trace, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the basic 'lookup' description. It also implies read-only, static nature, though it doesn't detail return format or update frequency, missing some extra context.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second provides a direct alternative, and the third adds behavioral transparency. It is front-loaded with the purpose, uses no fluff, and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns conceptually (who exists and what they cover), and its behavioral side effects. No significant gaps are present for the tool's complexity.

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 only defines an optional 'sector' string with no description or enum, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds that the tool is 'optionally filtered by sector' but does not enumerate valid sector values. The list of regulator names (SEBI, RBI, etc.) hints at possible sectors, but the description does not fully compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 identifies the tool as a static reference directory for Indian regulators, with a specific verb ('lookup') and resource (regulators). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool india_sectoral_check by explicitly stating the different purpose. The list of regulator acronyms adds specificity.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: it states this is for looking up who exists and what they cover, and when you need to determine which regulators apply to a processing activity, it directs you to use india_sectoral_check. This is a clear when-to-use vs. alternative recommendation.

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