get_alio_regulation

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

No annotations provided, so description must convey behavior. It mentions partial matching and article extraction, but does not disclose if the operation is read-only, the return format (markdown is implied), or any side effects. Basic behavioral context is present but minimal.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the purpose and key options in a single sentence. No extraneous words; every word serves a purpose.

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 output schema and 4 parameters, the description is adequate but lacks completeness. It does not explain what the returned markdown contains (full text, all articles?), nor does it mention pagination, sorting, or limitations. For a query tool, an agent may need more context to use it effectively.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying that partial matching applies to title and that the article parameter can extract specific articles, which goes beyond the schema's static descriptions.

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 retrieves the body of a specific regulation, with support for partial matching by regId or title and extraction of specific articles via the article parameter. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_alio_annexes' or 'list_alio_regulations' by specifying the content type (regulation body).

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 provides basic guidance on how to use the tool (param options) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as 'search_alio_regulation_text' or 'advanced_alio_search'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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