fi_energy_get_regulation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the full text is returned, but says nothing about behavior on an unknown/malformed reference (error vs empty), rate limits, or access requirements for a lookup tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the resource and keying method are front-loaded and the return hint follows immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly notes that full text is returned, closing the biggest return-value gap. The remaining omission is failure behavior for an unmatched reference string.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the same '588/2013' example appearing in both schema and description, so the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get a specific Finnish energy regulation') plus the keying mechanism ('by its reference string'). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling fi_energy_search_regulations, so an agent must infer the lookup-vs-search split.

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?

Usage is implied by the required reference string: this tool is for when you already have an exact reference. There is no explicit 'use search_regulations to find a reference first' guidance, and no when-not conditions.

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