notice_register

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait, and implies it returns aggregated data (latest per subject). However, it does not explain the return format, potential error conditions, or the meaning of 'items each one left out' (e.g., missing fields, omissions). This is adequate for a read-only query but 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core function and includes the read-only qualifier. There is zero redundancy, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for a no-parameter read-only tool.

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?

For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (latest notice per subject and items left out) and that it is read-only. However, it lacks context on what constitutes an 'Art. 13 or 14 notice' in this domain and what 'items each one left out' specifically refers to (e.g., missing mandatory fields). This could lead to misinterpretation. Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document. The description correctly implies that no arguments are needed. Since the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema fully describes the parameters), and with 0 params, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to add.

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 tool's function: it retrieves the latest Art. 13 or 14 notice per subject and the items each one left out. It specifies the resource (notices) and the action (retrieving latest per subject), and includes the read-only nature. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like record_notice or record_objection, though the specificity of 'latest per subject' and 'items left out' gives it a unique identity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or when a different tool (e.g., record_notice, objections) might be more appropriate. Given the large sibling list, an agent would have to infer usage from the name and description alone, which is insufficient.

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