regulatory_radar

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by revealing the underlying algorithm: reading the Authority note, finding statute amendments, comparing with rule revisions, and flagging changes. It does not, however, disclose output format or external API dependencies, which would strengthen transparency further.

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 three sentences with no filler: the first states the purpose, the second details the process, and the third gives use cases. It is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

The description is quite complete for a read-only analysis tool: it covers purpose, method, and use cases, and annotations cover safety semantics. However, since there is no output schema, the description only hints at the result ('flags any statute') without specifying the output format. It could also be clearer about the dependency on external data (e.g., govinfo API), though that is implied by openWorldHint and the API key parameter.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description provides overall context that helps interpret part/title/citation but adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema. The undocumented govinfoApiKey remains unexplained, but with high schema coverage the description need not compensate heavily.

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 specific purpose: checking whether a CFR part has fallen behind its authorizing statutes. It explains the analytical process (reads Authority note, compares amendment dates, flags changes) and thus distinguishes itself from generic legal research siblings like search_law or get_law_text.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use for compliance review and for spotting rules that may no longer match their authority.' This provides clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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