get_alio_regulation

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry behavioral info. It states the output is markdown and supports partial matching and article extraction, which is useful. However, it does not disclose edge cases (e.g., when both regId and title are provided), error handling, or performance implications.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and key features (markdown, partial match, article extraction). No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description lacks details on return format, error responses, or handling of multiple matches. The schema is well-described but the overall completeness is adequate for a simple retrieval tool, though more context on usage with sibling tools would help.

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 'partial match' behavior for regId and title, and the ability to extract specific articles. This enhances the semantic understanding beyond the schema's parameter 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 retrieves regulation text in markdown with partial match on regId or title. It also mentions article filtering. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_alio_regulations' or 'search_alio_regulation_text', which have overlapping purposes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for looking up regulation text but does not provide criteria for choosing between partial match parameters or mention when not to use (e.g., for lists or searches).

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