regulatory-radar__monitor_changes

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Monitor...', implying a read operation, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, output format, or what constitutes a 'change'. The trailing window is mentioned but not defined in terms of update frequency or data retention.

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 only one sentence, but it includes a product prefix '[regulatory-radar — ...]' that is not needed for tool functionality and wastes space. The core information is concise, but the structure could be improved by moving the prefix elsewhere.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination, or how results are formatted. For a monitoring tool, this is insufficient for correct agent 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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. 'jurisdiction' is required but no format/example given; 'since_days' and 'payment_ref' are defaulted but their purpose is unclear. The description adds zero meaning beyond the schema.

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 monitors recent regulatory changes in a jurisdiction over a trailing window. The verb 'Monitor' and resource 'regulatory changes' are specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like assess_compliance or scan_regulations, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as assess_compliance or scan_regulations. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or usage context, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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