regulation_check

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the tool as safe and non-destructive. The description adds context about database coverage (10 industries + tourists) but no further behavioral traits (e.g., response format, rate limits). With annotations present, the description offers moderate additional value.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and compact, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) to improve scanability. Still, every word 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return values or response structure, which it does not. It only states the tool 'answers' about regulations. Given medium complexity (3 parameters, no nested objects), this is a significant gap. The description also does not clarify how it relates to sibling regulation tools.

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%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description mentions '10 industries' which relates to the industry parameter, but adds no deeper semantics (e.g., format constraints or examples) beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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's function: 'Answers about Japanese regulations and licenses required for specific business actions.' It specifies the verb (回答する), resource (規制・許認可情報), and scope (10 industries + tourists), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like regulation_industries and regulation_tourist which likely focus on listing or specific subdomains.

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 implies usage for 'specific business actions' but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., when to use this vs. regulation_industries) or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The lack of explicit alternatives or exclusions limits its utility for tool selection.

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