regulatory-radar__build_evidence_pack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that only registry-owned regulator URLs are fetched, that retrieval timestamps and SHA-256 hashes are emitted, that a first run yields a baseline versus a detected change, and that later changes produce a bounded diff. It omits side-effect/auth detail, notably what persist_snapshot=true actually persists and whether state is written.

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 front-loaded with the artifact being built and then packed with substantive clauses; every sentence (delivery claim, behavior list, disclaimer) earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and six undocumented parameters, the description compensates by describing the returned evidence (hashes, timestamps, diff, calendar). Still, the parameter-level and persistence-side gaps leave the definition only minimally sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It hints at source filtering ('registry-owned regulator URLs') but says nothing about jurisdiction, topics, since_days, company_profile, or persist_snapshot, leaving most inputs ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb and artifact ('Build a live, source-hashed regulatory change evidence pack') and clarifies it combines regulator-source evidence with a deadline calendar. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the close sibling regulatory-radar__monitor_changes, which the 'detected change' language overlaps with.

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?

Usage is implied through the scope disclaimer ('Screening only; confirm legal applicability with the cited authority or qualified counsel'), which signals this is not legal advice. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over scan_regulations, assess_compliance, or monitor_changes, so the agent must infer the selection.

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