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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). Beyond that the description only re-lists filter axes that appear in the schema — it says nothing about result ordering, pagination, result caps, rate limits, or what an empty search returns. For a 14-parameter open-world search, that is thin added context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and the core scope leading. It is efficient, though so compressed that it borders on under-specification for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With 14 optional parameters, no required params, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is the only place an agent could learn how to combine filters (e.g., dateFrom/dateTo vs. lastDays, keywords OR semantics, RIN/docket lookups). It supplies none of that, leaving large behavioral gaps for a complex 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 coverage is only 36%, so the description must compensate, and it does not: it mentions agency, type, date, and open comment period, but leaves rin, order, limit, cfrPart, cfrTitle, docketId, lastDays, and significantOnly entirely undocumented in both places. No syntax hints (slug vs. name, date format) beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (US federal rules, proposed rules and notices), and enumerates the filter axes. The domain is unambiguous and shares no overlap with any sibling tools (grants, SEC filings, CSV/text utilities), so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 mention of 'open comment period' and agency/type/date filters implies intended use cases, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., a regs.gov docket lookup vs. this search). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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