hu_fin_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. The verb 'get' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds context about acceptable reference formats. However, it does not disclose behavior for not-found cases, output format, or any potential side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the primary purpose front-loaded. Every sentence provides useful context without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 fetch tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the input format and gives examples. However, it does not clarify what the tool returns (e.g., the full regulation text) or explicitly differentiate it from related search/list tools, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already well-described. The description's example references ('MNB rendelet 2/2015', 'MNB ajanlas 7/2021') are also present in the schema's parameter description, so no additional meaning is added beyond what the schema provides.

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's action ('Get') and target resource ('specific MNB regulatory provision'), and specifies the method ('by sourcebook and reference'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hu_fin_search_regulations and hu_fin_list_sourcebooks, as it targets a single known provision.

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 implies usage for retrieving a specific provision when you already have the sourcebook and reference, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search or list tools, nor does it describe alternative scenarios. No clear when/when-not guidance is provided.

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