search_regulations

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it returns a paginated list, includes specific fields (title, jurisdiction, etc.), and mentions pagination parameters. However, with no annotations provided, it does not address authentication requirements or rate limits, which would complete the picture.

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 concise and well-structured: a single-sentence purpose, followed by a paragraph on usage, return information, a follow-up tip, and a bullet-like list of parameters. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the complexity (6 optional parameters, output schema exists, multiple siblings), the description covers purpose, usage context, return structure, follow-up action, and parameter details. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully documents all six parameters with examples and optionality (e.g., 'jurisdiction: ISO-style jurisdiction code, e.g. "EU", "US"... Optional.'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema's type/null/default information.

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 'Search the RegIntel database of global regulatory and compliance rules,' specifying the verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like get_regulation (which retrieves a specific regulation) and list_jurisdictions (which lists supported jurisdictions).

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this tool when the user asks about regulatory obligations, compliance requirements, legal changes...' and instructs to follow up with get_regulation for full details. It also lists example jurisdictions and use cases, making it easy to decide when to invoke.

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