get_regulatory_status

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds auth requirements (needs FCA credentials), the name-matching limitation, and an explicit prompt-injection warning that registry text is data not instructions. It doesn't discuss caching beyond what the 'fresh' parameter implies.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries information (scope, inputs, matching caveat, auth, safety note). The sentences are long and dense, so it reads as slightly packed rather than crisply structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description itself enumerates the return contents, and it covers inputs, credentials, matching semantics, and failure interpretation. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: entity_id and identifier are interchangeable entry points, a Companies House number is acceptable, and scheme FCA_FRN pairs with a firm reference number. That contextualizes the enum beyond its inline text.

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+resource+source: whether a UK company is FCA-authorised, from the FCA Register, and enumerates the returned facets (status, regulators, regulated activities, requirements). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like screen_sanctions or check_coverage.

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?

Gives concrete input guidance (entity_id or identifier; a Companies House number works) and an important usage caveat: the register can't be searched by company number, matching is by name, and 'not found' is not proof of being unregulated. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives for when a different tool is preferred.

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