suggest_alio_regulation_names

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits like being read-only or any limitations. However, the tool is a simple autocomplete, so the lack of detail is acceptable but not ideal. A mention of non-destructive nature would improve it.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose and key features.

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 could explain the return format, but the tool is simple (autocomplete suggestions). It is mostly complete for its complexity, lacking only output details.

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 for all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra value by noting the institution filter, but mostly restates schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 does autocomplete/partial matching of regulation titles using keywords, and can filter by institution. It uses specific verb 'suggest' and resource 'regulation names', distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_alio_regulations' and 'search_alio_regulation_text'.

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?

It explicitly says to use when exact title is unknown ('정확한 제목 모를 때'), providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the scenario is clearly defined.

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