search_regulatory_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so description does not need to cover those. The description adds value by detailing the event types covered ('regulatory_letter, violation_penalty'), which is beyond the annotations.

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, zero waste. Front-loaded with purpose and specific coverage. Every word earns its place.

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's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is complete enough. It specifies the event types and usage context. Missing output schema details are not required when description focuses on input semantics.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not harm but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 searches for regulatory events, specifically covering 'regulatory_letter' and 'violation_penalty' types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_violation_events' or 'search_events' by specifying the exact event coverage. The annotation title adds clarity with 'exchange scrutiny'.

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 for regulatory scrutiny signals from exchanges, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools. However, by specifying coverage of specific event types, it indirectly guides the agent away from tools for other event types.

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