regulatory-radar__scan_regulations

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It states it returns regulations but does not explicitly confirm it's read-only or mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Adequate but not transparent.

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?

Two sentences efficiently cover purpose, parameters, and output. No redundancy, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Covers inputs and outputs well given simplicity. Could mention pagination or error handling, but for a scan tool with two parameters and no output schema, it is mostly 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds examples for jurisdiction (e.g. EU, US) and states sector is optional. Adds context beyond type definitions, though valid values for sector are not specified.

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?

Description clearly states it scans regulatory landscape by jurisdiction and optionally sector, and returns regulations with urgency flags and effective dates. Differentiates from siblings like assess_compliance and monitor_changes by focusing on broad scanning.

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?

Implied usage: for initial regulatory scanning by jurisdiction/sector. No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (assess_compliance, monitor_changes) or prerequisites.

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