regulatory-radar__scan_regulations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pricing ($0.25 per call after 10 free calls/day) and payment methods, but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits beyond the free tier, or data freshness.

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 verbose, including a preamble prefix and detailed payment instructions that could be separated or shortened. The core functionality is front-loaded, but the overall length and inclusion of non-essential details reduce conciseness.

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 description mentions return values (regulations with urgency flags and effective dates) and payment flow, but lacks details on error handling, response format, or the scope of sector values. No output schema is provided, so more context would be beneficial for a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations.

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 description explains 'jurisdiction' and 'sector' (optionally filtered by sector) but does not describe the 'payment_ref' parameter. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should add meaning for all three parameters; it partially does for two.

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 scans the regulatory landscape for a jurisdiction, optionally filtered by sector, and returns regulations with urgency flags and effective dates. The verb 'scan' and the resource are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'assess_compliance' and 'monitor_changes'.

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 alternatives like regulatory-radar__assess_compliance or regulatory-radar__monitor_changes. It does not specify prerequisites or contexts where the tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

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