Get Policy Events

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about the meaning of flaggedTradeCount, matchBasis, and matchCount, along with a caution that sector matches are not evidence of foreknowledge. This goes beyond annotations, though pagination behavior is not explicitly described.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by filter details and important interpretation notes. It is efficient, though slightly lengthy; every sentence adds value.

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 complexity of policy-event data with trade co-occurrence, the description is complete: it specifies filter options, response fields, and critical interpretation caveats. The output schema exists, but the description provides necessary context beyond it.

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 the parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds context about the response fields but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond what is already provided.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'mirrored executive orders (policy events)', and the source 'Federal Register feed'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_policy_trade_leaderboard by focusing on the policy events themselves rather than trades or overlaps.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other policy-related tools among siblings. It provides important caveats about sector matches but lacks guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose.

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