get_treasury_reg

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose truncation (max_chars) and recursive child inclusion. It does not state what happens on invalid citations, whether the text is current/authoritative in a dynamic sense, or any other side effects; moderate transparency.

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?

A one-line purpose followed by a terse Args block; every sentence adds information. No filler or repetition of the schema titles.

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?

For a simple text-retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers function and all parameters well. It is slightly incomplete in not relating itself to sibling citation tools or specifying behavior around max_chars truncation marks, but these are minor.

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 explain all params. It gives concrete citation examples, explains include_children as recursive paragraph text, and defines max_chars as truncation length. This compensates well, though it doesn't detail default behavior or edge cases like an invalid citation.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves the official text of a Treasury Regulation, with citation examples that make the resource unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_irc_provision, but the resource type ('Treasury Regulation') is specific enough.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need the official text of a Treasury Regulation. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like resolve_citation or get_irc_provision.

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