fi_energy_search_regulations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned document types (laki, asetus, maarays, ohje) and language support, which is useful, but says nothing about read-only safety, pagination beyond the limit param, rate limits, or result format.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the corpus scope is front-loaded before the return types. Every sentence earns its place.

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 search tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the corpus, the sources, and the returned document classes adequately. Minor gaps remain around result format and ranking/pagination behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with enum values and defaults already documented for type, status, regulator, and limit. The description adds no parameter syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 (Search) and resource (Finnish energy regulations) plus the authoritative sources (Energiavirasto, TEM, Tukes) and the document classes it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near siblings like fi_energy_search_decisions or fi_energy_search_grid_codes, so it falls short of a 5.

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 through the corpus boundary — it searches regulations, not decisions or grid codes — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives. 'Supports Finnish-language queries' is a capability note rather than selection guidance.

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