Find consumer components by anchor

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions returning 'entries (and hard rules)' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens if the rule is not found. This is insufficient for a tool with no other behavioral hints.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides basic context but lacks details on return value structure, error scenarios, and explicit differentiation from similar tools. It is adequate for a simple lookup but not fully 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 single parameter 'rule' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), but the tool description provides example values ('COPPA', 'GDPR Art 7') that add meaning beyond the raw string type. However, it lacks details on format, case sensitivity, or allowed values, so it earns a baseline 3.

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 performs regulation-first discovery over the consumer catalogue, using examples like 'COPPA' and 'GDPR Art 7'. It distinguishes from generic search tools by emphasizing starting from the rule. However, the term 'anchor' in the name is not explicitly defined, causing slight ambiguity.

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 implies usage when you need to find consumer components by a regulation (e.g., 'Start from the rule, not the widget'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Given siblings like search_components and find_by_regulation, there is overlap with no clear differentiation.

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