ro_fin_get_regulation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic function without disclosing any behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a read-only lookup, this might be sufficient, but it lacks depth.

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 two sentences long, with the first stating the purpose and the second giving examples. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does and how to use it with examples. However, it could mention that the sourcebook must be a valid identifier from the list.

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 parameters are already described. The description adds value by providing concrete examples of valid references, which clarifies the expected format beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'Romanian financial regulation provision' with distinct identifiers 'sourcebook' and 'reference'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ro_fin_search_regulations by focusing on a specific provision retrieval.

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 explicit examples of valid references (e.g., 'ASF_NORME 15/2015 art.3') and implies that this tool is for fetching a specific provision, not for searching or listing. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where the reference might be malformed or when to use alternatives.

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