search_other_regulations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: local regulations are current-only, some treaties are scanned images with PDF links only, exchange regulations come from 證基會 and are view-only/non-redistributable, and the default fans out to all 28 sources. Return-format and pagination behavior are not described, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the sibling it does not replace, then organized into scannable bullets by source category with the args block last. It is longer than minimal but each section carries routing or coverage information, so little is wasted.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the source taxonomy, the default fan-out, key caveats, and the id-handoff to get_other_regulation. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only pagination/result-shape details are absent.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for two of three params: keyword gets syntax guidance and an example, and source gets a full list of accepted values plus delimiter rules and default behavior. page is only glossed as 頁數 with no detail, leaving a small gap against the otherwise strong coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (搜尋) and resource, and explicitly scopes itself against a named sibling: it finds regulations that query_regulation cannot. The three bulleted categories (地方自治法規, 條約及協定, 交易所規章) make the coverage boundary concrete and let an agent distinguish it from search_regulations/query_regulation without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: it names query_regulation as the source it complements and tells the caller to pass the returned id to get_other_regulation. It also advises specifying source and warns that omitting it queries all 28 sources. It stops short of stating when-not to use it, so a 4 rather than 5.

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