find_similar_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 only describes the basic functionality (search similar regulations by title) without disclosing any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence plus a note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no wasted words or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format, sorting/ranking of results, how regId and title interact (they are alternatives), or error handling. The user is left with significant gaps in understanding the full behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by framing the parameters within the 1:N matching and benchmarking purpose, but it does not add new meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already provide for each parameter (e.g., institution code, regId vs title, threshold, excludeBase, max).

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's purpose: 'Search N regulations from other institutions with high title similarity to one reference regulation (1:N matching)' for benchmarking. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like advanced_alio_search or search_alio_regulation_text which do not specifically find similar regulations across institutions.

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 implies usage for benchmarking ('direct benchmarking') and matching one regulation to many others from different institutions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use scenarios. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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