list_regulations

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

No annotations provided, so the description is the sole source. It discloses the output structure (slug, label, jurisdiction, row count) but does not mention behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, or permissions. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Two well-structured sentences. The first states the main purpose, the second details output fields and usage. No wasted words, front-loaded with key action.

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 simple list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what the response contains. It is complete given the tool's complexity.

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 baseline 3. The description does not add additional meaning for the parameters beyond what is already in the schema, focusing instead on output fields.

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 returns regulations covered by the dataset, using the verb 'return' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by highlighting its role as a discovery step for other tools like lookup_control and crosswalk, which adds context.

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?

Explicitly advises calling this tool first before other tools, mentioning lookup_control and crosswalk by name. This provides clear usage context, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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