list_regulations

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a read-only listing operation, mentions the scope (29 regulations across specific jurisdictions), and implies no side effects. It could have elaborated on possible pagination or staleness, but overall it is sufficiently transparent for a zero-parameter tool.

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 sentences pack all needed information: what it returns, the fields, the current scale, and usage advice. No wasted words; the structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple list return, the description is complete. It covers the output shape, use case, and even suggests next steps. No additional information is needed for an AI agent to select and invoke this 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?

With no parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining the output structure (fields included) and the context (current number of regulations, jurisdictions). This provides meaning beyond the empty schema.

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 returns a list of regulations with specific fields (short_name, full name, jurisdiction, etc.), and even mentions the current count and coverage. This provides a precise purpose that distinguishes it from siblings that may return details or filtered lists.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool first for coverage questions or to get a regulation ID for follow-up calls. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or contrast with siblings, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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