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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable context: returns full entries with plain-English summaries and source links, and is updated daily from the Federal Register and IRS Internal Revenue Bulletin. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it omits details like default result limits or pagination 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'Search', and covers scope, filters, return value, and data source. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers return format and data updates sufficiently. It omits explicit mention of default limit or pagination, which is a minor gap but acceptable for a search tool with a limit parameter in the schema.

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 compensates by enumerating valid values for jurisdiction (federal/state), category (estates/trusts/tax/gift), and impact level (low/medium/high), which maps directly to schema parameters. The limit parameter is not explained, but four of five parameters receive meaningful 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 searches the full regulatory database, listing specific filter dimensions (keyword, jurisdiction, category, impact level) and return content (full entries with summaries and source links). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recent_by_impact, which focuses on recent results, and get_regulation_detail, which presumably retrieves a specific regulation.

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 implies use for broad searching across the database but does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, so the agent must infer from sibling names.

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