Get consumer rules

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that out-of-force rules are returned separately under not_in_force and carry a citation hazard — a behavioral trait the annotations do not convey. It stops short of describing ordering, volume, or what an empty result means.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core resource statement comes first and the citation warning second. The opening is a sentence fragment rather than a verb phrase, but nothing is wasted or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the not_in_force warning covers the main interpretive risk. For a zero-required-parameter lookup with completely undocumented parameters, however, the definition leaves too much unresolved: default behavior with no filters, value formats for state, and result scope are all unstated.

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 0% and all three parameters are nullable with null defaults, so the description must carry the semantics. It mentions only sector and issue, leaving state entirely unexplained — no guidance on abbreviation versus full name, case, or acceptable values — and does not say what happens when filters are omitted.

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 names the resource precisely — laws and regulations — and scopes it to a sector and issue, so an agent knows this is a legal-rules lookup rather than a company or case lookup. The retrieval verb is only implied, but the resource framing is specific enough to separate it from siblings like find_regulators or list_issues.

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 one genuinely useful usage rule: rules under not_in_force were vacated, stayed or withdrawn and must not be cited as current law. That governs how to consume results, but the description says nothing about when to choose this tool over the alternative lookups in the sibling set, nor whether omitting filters returns everything.

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