search_alio_regulation_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the return format (hit lines/snippets) but lacks details on authorization, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description adds some value beyond the schema but is not fully transparent.

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 main action and key features. 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 the complexity and the presence of sibling tools, the description covers the essential aspects: what it searches (regulation text), how to filter (institutions), and what it returns (snippets). It lacks explicit mention of pagination or ordering, but the schema parameters imply that. Overall, it is adequate but could include more about result handling.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about searching regulation full text and snippet return, but does not significantly enhance understanding of the parameters beyond the schema.

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 searches the full text of collected regulations by keyword, can be limited by institutions, and returns hit lines/snippets. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'search_law' or 'search_precedents'.

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 provides context on how to use the tool (keyword search, institutional filter) but does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. Given the diverse siblings, some guidance would help but the purpose is clear.

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