search_regulation

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It transparently describes the return format (snippets with regulation + article + relevance), source (EUR-Lex Cellar), and highlighting. It lacks details on rate limits or potential errors, but overall is adequate.

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?

Structured into Args and Returns sections, each sentence adds value. While not extremely concise, it is well-organized and free of fluff.

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 purpose, parameters, return format, and source. It lacks error handling details, but overall provides sufficient context for agent use.

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 0%, yet the description adds comprehensive semantics: query with FTS5 syntax, regulation with a list of options, and limit with default value. This fully compensates for the missing schema 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 'Full-text search across 410+ articles of real EU regulation text', which specifies the verb (search) and resource (regulation text), and distinguishes from siblings like 'list_regulations_in_db' and 'classify_food_business'.

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 explains when to use (full-text search), provides optional filters (regulation, limit), and mentions FTS5 syntax support. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings, but the context sufficiently implies usage boundaries.

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