list_regulations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the conditional behavior (list of regulations vs. list of universities) but does not mention return format, pagination, or other potential side effects. As a simple read-only list tool, this is acceptable but not exceptionally transparent.

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 two short sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the purpose and states the key conditional behavior efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low complexity and full parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is generally complete for a list tool. However, no output schema exists and the description doesn't mention return fields, but for a list of regulations this is likely acceptable. It also doesn't explain relation to sibling tools, but that is not critical here.

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 100% for both parameters, and the main description repeats the behavior of omitting 'university' that is already in the schema parameter description. No additional parameter semantics are added beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 university regulations, with a specific scope: if 'university' is omitted, it shows supported universities. This is a specific verb+resource+scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like search_regulations, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implied usage context by explaining the behavior when 'university' is omitted, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_regulations or get_regulation. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, so there is no clear guidance.

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