Get Regulations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that only cataloged URLs are used, that saved text files are returned, and names two outcome states (`fetch_error`, `uncatalogued`). It omits auth requirements, caching/rate limits, and freshness of live fetches.

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 core action, then the constraints and parameter notes in short sentences. Nearly every sentence adds a fact, though the saved-text-file sentence and error-state sentences could be slightly tightened.

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?

All three parameters are undocumented in schema, and the description covers two of them plus the failure modes; an output schema handles return shape. Remaining gaps are auth/permissions and how `state` values are formed (which the sibling list_jurisdictions presumably supplies).

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 largely does: `source_id` is explained via the `primary-statute`/`agency-rules` distinction and `section` is defined as the passage starting at a given citation. `state` is only implied through 'that jurisdiction's catalog' and never explicitly described.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource plus return content: fetch one cataloged official regulation and return its text. It also scopes the tool negatively ('does not accept an arbitrary URL', 'does not summarize'), which separates it from any fetch/summarize sibling.

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?

It states the default document type (`primary-statute`) and when to pass `source_id` for an alternative like `agency-rules`, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of naming when to use a sibling tool (e.g., list_jurisdictions first), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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