hu_fin_search_regulations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns matching document types, which is useful, but it does not mention default status filtering, result limits, or any safe-read behavior. No contradictions, but richer context would help.

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 a single sentence with no waste, but it contains a typo ('ajanласок' instead of 'ajanlasok') and a missing accent, which slightly detracts from professionalism. Overall, it is concise and front-loaded.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and document types but omits practical details like default behavior for status, how to filter by sourcebook, or the fact that results may be limited. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only implying full-text search semantics. It does not explain defaults (e.g., status defaulting to all) beyond what schema already states.

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 full-text search across MNB regulatory provisions, listing specific document types (decrees, recommendations, management circulars). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like hu_fin_search_enforcement and hu_fin_get_regulation.

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 searching regulations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., hu_fin_search_enforcement for enforcement actions). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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