regulation_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a non-mutating read, and it discloses the content scope (requirements, timelines, penalties, guidance), but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether lookup can fail on unknown IDs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the verb, resource, and returned content areas with no filler. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it tells the agent what content the breakdown contains. The main gap is routing guidance relative to its five siblings.

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 description coverage is 100% and the regulation_id parameter already documents format with concrete examples ('eu-ai-act', 'ccpa'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the 3 baseline applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get detailed breakdown') and resource ('a specific AI regulation'), plus enumerates the returned content areas. It implies a single-regulation lookup vs. the sibling get_regulations list, but never names that distinction explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is for deep detail on one regulation by ID, versus list/browse tools. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or reference to any sibling such as get_regulations or jurisdiction_compare.

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