get_regulatory_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, error behavior, or data freshness. While 'retrieve' implies read-only, more explicit disclosure would improve transparency.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately sized without redundancy, though a bit more structure (e.g., listing parameters) would improve scannability.

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 three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core use case but does not explain what the response looks like (e.g., list of changes with dates). This leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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 input schema already explains each parameter (limit, regulator, impact_level). The description adds no additional context for parameters, earning the baseline of 3.

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 it retrieves 'recent and upcoming Australian AI regulatory changes' with specific regulators listed. The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'changes' are precise, and the scope distinguishes it from siblings like search_patterns or get_incidents.

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 includes 'Useful for understanding compliance obligations when building AI systems for the Australian market,' which indicates when to use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to siblings, but the sibling tools are clearly different in domain.

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