get_regulatory_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output contains. For a tool that provides regulatory status, crucial details like data freshness or scope are missing.

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 very short (two phrases). While concise, it lacks structure and omits important context. 'Starter tier' is unclear and adds little value. The description could be more informative without being verbose.

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 no output schema and a single parameter, the description fails to explain what the output looks like, how to interpret results, or any limitations. For a regulatory status tool, missing details like what constitutes 'status' or whether it's current/data completeness leaves the agent underinformed.

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 coverage is 100% (one parameter with 'ISO country code or name.'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 'Country-by-country crypto regulation state' clearly indicates the tool retrieves regulatory status for a given country. The verb is implied (get/retrieve), and the resource is well-defined. 'Starter tier' is somewhat vague but doesn't obscure the main purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_mica_status and get_tax_rules.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other regulatory tools (get_mica_status, get_tax_rules). The description gives no context on appropriate scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent without guidance.

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