ro_fin_search_regulations

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states it returns matching documents. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only (safe to call multiple times), any rate limits, authentication requirements, or the output format (e.g., list of IDs, snippets). This omission forces the agent to guess behavior from the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 has 4 parameters but no output schema, the description should explain what the response looks like (e.g., list of regulation IDs with metadata). It only says 'returns matching...', leaving the structure unclear. The tool's complexity is moderate, but the description fails to fully equip an agent to use it correctly without additional context.

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?

While schema coverage is 100% and baseline is 3, the description adds domain context by naming specific regulatory bodies (ASF, BNR) and document types. This helps an agent understand the 'sourcebook' parameter's significance and that 'query' should be in Romanian. The examples in the schema description for 'query' further aid interpretation.

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 it performs full-text search across Romanian financial regulation provisions and lists the specific document types returned (ASF norme, instructiuni, BNR regulamente, norme). This distinctively differentiates it from siblings like ro_fin_get_regulation (retrieve specific regulation) and ro_fin_search_enforcement.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: when searching Romanian financial regulations. It implicitly tells the agent not to use this tool for retrieving a single regulation (use ro_fin_get_regulation) or searching enforcement (use ro_fin_search_enforcement). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance.

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