applicable_regulations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only describes the output content (regulations and documents) but omits any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling for invalid jurisdiction ids, authentication requirements, or side effects.

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 efficient with two sentences: the first defines the function, the second gives a usage example. No redundant or extraneous information is present.

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 adequately covers its purpose and a common use case. It could be improved by mentioning what happens with invalid jurisdiction ids or that it combines both regulations and documents, but overall it is sufficient.

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 already provides a clear description of the single parameter (jurisdiction_id with examples). The description does not add new semantic information beyond restating the parameter's role, so it meets the baseline expected from high schema coverage.

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 function: given a jurisdiction id, it returns applicable regulations and associated documents. The example query ('I serve customers in California — what privacy laws apply?') reinforces the purpose but does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like 'list_regulations' or 'compliance_checklist'.

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 a concrete example of when to use the tool (user asking about privacy laws for a jurisdiction), implying usage context. However, no guidance is given on when NOT to use this tool (e.g., if only a list of regulations is needed without documents, 'list_regulations' might suffice).

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