regulatory-intel-mcp

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It states the tool returns agencies and slugs but does not mention pagination, error cases, or side effects. Adequate for a simple lookup but could be more 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Every word adds value. Front-loaded with the key purpose.

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?

For a simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it returns, how to filter, and why to use it (slugs for sibling tools). Lacks return format details but acceptable.

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 already describes the query parameter (100% coverage). Description adds optionality and examples, which help the agent understand usage beyond schema constraints.

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?

Clearly states the verb ('look up'), resource ('US federal agencies'), and the purpose of the result ('slugs used to filter other tools'). The tool is distinct from siblings which deal with documents and orders.

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?

Explains that the slugs are used to filter other tools and that a query can be passed to filter by name. Provides example queries. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It lists return fields but does not disclose rate limits, authentication, error handling, or any side effects. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 parameter, then lists return fields efficiently. No wasted 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?

For a low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what input is needed, and what is returned, making it self-contained.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds significant context by providing an example ('2026-12811') and explaining that it's the Federal Register document number. This clarifies the parameter's purpose and format 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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full detail on a single Federal Register document', with specific fields listed. It differentiates from siblings like search_documents and recent_documents by targeting a specific document number.

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 conditions usage on having a document number, making it clear when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or point to alternatives, though sibling names imply them.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return fields (EO number, dates, title, links) but does not mention pagination, result limits, or freshness of data. Adequate but could be more transparent about behavior.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no fluff. Directly conveys purpose and capabilities.

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?

No output schema, but description lists return fields. With 3 optional params and simple output, description is mostly complete. Minor gaps: default ordering, result limits (per_page in schema but not mentioned in description), and scope of 'recent'.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new information beyond the schema; it simply restates optional filtering by keyword and date. No extra semantic value.

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 US presidential Executive Orders from the Federal Register, with optional filtering. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'agencies' and 'search_documents' by specifying a focused resource and scope.

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 indicates when to use this tool (searching executive orders) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. The sibling names provide implicit context, but the description itself lacks exclusion guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided. The description discloses that the tool lists recent documents with filters, but omits details like result format, pagination, or authentication requirements. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. First defines function, second gives use case. Every word earns its place.

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 description covers purpose and parameters but lacks output format details. Given no output schema, it would benefit from mentioning what fields are returned. Adequate for a simple list tool, but leaves gaps.

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 description adds meaning by explaining parameter roles (e.g., 'filtered by type and issuing agency'). The schema covers 75% of parameters; the description compensates for the undocumented 'type' parameter by naming document types in context.

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 lists recent Federal Register documents, with optional filters. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search_documents' by focusing on 'recent' and 'monitoring' use case.

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 gives a specific use case: monitoring newly published rules/notices. It implicitly differentiates from search but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives.

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

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

Discloses that it returns matching documents with title, type, agencies, abstract, and links. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden; it adequately conveys read-only behavior but does not mention pagination or rate limits, which are minor omissions.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, filters, return format and use case. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the core verb-noun pair. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers purpose, filters, return format, and use case. Links to the agencies tool for slug discovery. Lacks mention that the 'term' parameter is optional (though schema shows no required params) and does not explain per_page limits beyond the schema. Still highly informative for a search tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists the main filter parameters but adds no additional detail beyond the schema's descriptions. It mentions that agency slugs come from the 'agencies' tool, which is helpful context but not critical.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches the US Federal Register for regulations and notices, with specific filters (keyword, document type, agency, date). It includes a use case 'what did agency X publish about topic Y' that distinguishes it from sibling tools like recent_documents or agencies.

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?

Describes when to use (searching with filters, finding documents by agency/topic) and references the agencies tool for slugs. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling tools imply alternatives (e.g., use recent_documents for a feed, document for a single record).

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