query_regulation

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses return behavior ('Returns relevant articles with key points and cross-references') but does not explicitly state read-only nature or any side effects, permissions, or limitations. The absence of such details is acceptable for a query tool but leaves some ambiguity.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose and output.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it returns and the scope of content. It could be more complete by explicitly noting it is read-only or how to best phrase questions, but overall it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema description covers the single parameter 'question' with examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add much beyond the schema and simply restates the purpose, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Ask') and resource ('compliance question... knowledge base'), and specifies the covered regulatory domains (GDPR, EU AI Act, CCPA/CPRA, software licensing, web accessibility). This distinguishes it from generic search tools like 'search_wiki'.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you have a compliance question. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the domain-specific phrasing gives sufficient guidance for typical use cases.

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