analyze_regulation_delegation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that includeLawLookup=true slows down the tool (up to 5 slow calls), which is important behavioral information. However, it does not explicitly state if the tool is read-only or if it modifies data.

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, concise sentence covering the core function and key parameter behavior. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes essential details without redundancy.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose and key behavioral aspects but does not describe the return format or what the extraction results look like. For a tool that analyzes and extracts, the output is not explained.

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 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the includeLawLookup parameter's role as a bridge to searchLaw and noting the performance impact. The lawLookupLimit parameter is also contextualized. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 extracts references to higher laws/regulations from a specific regulation text and optionally links to law lookup. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on delegation analysis and bridging to search_law.

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 mentions the law lookup linkage but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_law' or other analysis tools. The context suggests it's for analyzing delegation in regulations, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria.

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