search_regulation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are verbatim from EUR-Lex Cellar, include snippets with regulation+article+relevance score, and feature auditor-defensible quotes with highlights. This adequately conveys that the operation is read-only and trustworthy.

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 highly concise, using a structured Args/Returns format. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes necessary details without verbosity.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully describes return values (snippets, regulation, article, relevance score, highlights). All parameters are explained, and the tool's scope is clear. It meets all information needs for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: query (FTS5 syntax), regulation (optional filter listing valid values), and limit (default 10). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 explicitly states it performs a full-text search across 410+ articles of EU regulation text from EUR-Lex, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_regulations_in_db (listing) or specific checks like market_abuse_check. The verb 'search' and resource 'regulation text' are specific.

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 specifies the tool is for full-text search with FTS5 syntax and optional filters. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the context of siblings makes its primary use clear. A slight lack of exclusionary guidance prevents a 5.

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