Find by regulation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It only states it finds components without disclosing side effects, read-only nature, or performance characteristics. The noun 'find' hints at read-only, but it's not explicit.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose with examples, second adds contextual note. No fluff, every word adds value.

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 one-parameter search tool without output schema, the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks details on return structure, pagination, or any edge cases, making it only minimally complete.

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 only parameter 'rule' is a string with no description in schema (0% coverage). The description adds concrete examples (FINRA 2111, NACHA, SEC 17a-4) which help clarify expected values, but does not specify format or constraints beyond that.

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 finds components that serve a given rule, with specific examples of regulations (FINRA 2111, NACHA, SEC 17a-4). This differentiates it from siblings like search_components, which are more generic.

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 context ('Compliance-driven discovery') implying when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like search_components. This is adequate but not thorough.

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