regulatory-radar__describe_agent

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It merely states it is a 'self-description' without disclosing whether the call has side effects, requires authentication, or is read-only. The term 'fleet-standard' is vague and does not clarify behavioral traits.

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 concise at one sentence, front-loaded with the namespace and purpose. It could be slightly more informative about what the description contains, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and a generic purpose, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not specify the format of the output (e.g., JSON) or how it differs from other describe_agent tools, which is a gap given the large number of siblings.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description adds the semantic context that this tool describes 'capabilities, inputs, outputs,' which goes slightly beyond the schema. Given the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, this 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 states it is a 'fleet-standard self-description' for the regulatory-radar namespace, mentioning CSRD/TNFD compliance, which clearly indicates the tool's purpose of describing the agent's capabilities, inputs, and outputs. However, it does not differentiate from other describe_agent tools in sibling namespaces.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling describe_agent tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the namespace.

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