analyze_alio_regulation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does without mentioning side effects, idempotency, authentication needs, or output format, leaving significant gaps.

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, front-loaded with the core functionality, and wastes no words. Every sentence contributes purpose and usage guidance.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, many siblings), the description is somewhat lacking. It covers core purpose and one alternative but omits output details, prerequisites, and broader usage context, making it minimally adequate.

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 coverage is high (80%), so baseline is 3. The description adds context for 'showTOC' and 'maxTocItems' by tying them to the TOC analysis, but does not clarify 'regId' (undocumented in schema) or add meaning beyond the schema for other parameters.

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 analyzes regulation metadata, structure, and table of contents for ALIO regulations. It distinguishes itself from 'analyze_document' for deep risk analysis, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly directs deep risk analysis to 'analyze_document', providing a clear when-not-to-use scenario. However, it does not elaborate on when to prefer this tool over other siblings like 'get_alio_regulation' or 'analyze_regulation_delegation'.

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