market_requirements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It only states that the tool returns certain data, without disclosing potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. For a simple query tool, this is minimally acceptable but lacks transparency about response format or error handling.

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, consisting of two clear sentences. The first sentence states the primary function, and the second lists the data fields and available markets. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns and the valid inputs. However, it could be improved by briefly describing the output format or providing an example, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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% (one parameter with enum and description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it merely repeats the market list. Therefore, it neither improves nor degrades parameter understanding beyond the baseline of a well-documented schema.

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 purpose: retrieving regulatory requirements for a specified market. It lists the types of data returned (regulatory body, agencies, standards, certification process, modular approval rules) and enumerates the supported market codes. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which focus on individual standards or specific regulations.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. While it states it handles multiple global markets, it does not contrast with sibling tools that focus on specific standards (e.g., fcc_part15_limit, cispr12_limit). There is no 'when not to use' or mention of other tools for more detailed requirements.

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