BankRegPulse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output is 'pre-formatted' and 'ready to copy and share,' which adds some context about the return format. However, it doesn't describe critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output format. It's front-loaded with the main action and includes no unnecessary details, making it appropriately sized and zero-waste.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the output format but lacks details on behavioral traits and usage context. Without annotations or output schema, it should provide more guidance on when to use it and what to expect, but it meets a basic threshold.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter ('date') fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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: 'Get a pre-formatted LinkedIn post about today's regulatory developments, ready to copy and share on social media.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('LinkedIn post'), and content focus ('regulatory developments'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_daily_briefing or get_daily_podcast. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling comparison.

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 minimal usage guidance, stating it's for getting a LinkedIn post 'ready to copy and share on social media.' However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_daily_briefing or get_daily_podcast, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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