search_regulations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that search is limited to regulation names and returns a list, adding useful context. However, it does not clarify matching behavior (partial/exact, case sensitivity), pagination, or handling of no results, leaving some gaps.

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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loading the action and scope. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with two fully described parameters, but lacks an output schema and annotations. The description explains the core search behavior and return type (list of regulations), but omits details about the structure of the returned list and edge cases, such as no matches. It is adequate for a basic tool but not fully complete.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline for high 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 it searches university regulations by keyword, specifically looking in regulation names, and returns a list of matching regulations. This differentiates it from sibling tools that list all regulations or fetch specific ones.

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 clearly implies use when the user needs to find regulations by keyword, and the scope ('regulations name') is clear. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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