list_regulations

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

Annotations already establish this is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context about output structure: results are 'grouped by category' when listing all, and specifying a regulation 'shows chapters and articles.' This compensates somewhat for the missing output schema, though it omits details like pagination or rate limits.

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 optimally concise with two efficient sentences. It front-loads the primary action ('List available regulations') and immediately qualifies the filtering options. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or tautological text.

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 this is a read-only listing tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs to know: the scope of regulations listed, the grouping logic, and the hierarchical detail available. It could be improved by mentioning pagination or result limits, but it is sufficient for tool selection.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds functional semantics by explaining the consequence of using each parameter: 'category' filters the list, while 'regulation' switches the output to show detailed structure (chapters/articles). This goes beyond the schema's basic type definitions.

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 'List[s] available regulations' with specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes two operational modes (listing all vs. showing structure), which implicitly differentiates it from siblings like 'search_regulations' or 'get_article'. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools to use for different use cases.

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 guidance on parameter usage: 'Without parameters, lists all...' versus 'With a regulation specified, shows chapters and articles.' This explains when to use each parameter. It lacks explicit naming of sibling alternatives (e.g., 'use search_regulations for text search'), but the contextual guidance is strong.

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