get_regulatory_domain

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result contains a 'country' value formatted as an ISO alpha-2 code, which aids parsing. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, missing-value behavior, errors, or platform-specific caveats.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The action, target, and return format are presented directly and the most important information appears first.

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 parameterless getter, the description is minimally sufficient: it states the purpose and the format of the returned country code. However, the existence of closely related sibling tools creates selection ambiguity that the description does not resolve, and the output schema alone does not compensate for that gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing about parameters remains undocumented.

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 identifies a specific action ('get') and resource ('current Wi-Fi regulatory domain'), and it specifies the return value as an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the similarly named sibling get_wifi_regulatory.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_wifi_regulatory or set_regulatory_domain. The phrase 'get current' weakly implies a read operation, but no exclusions or selection criteria are provided.

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