FedReg Tracker

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the text comparison is explicitly labeled partial and is not a legal redline, which sets the agent's expectations about fidelity of the output. It does not mention cost, latency, or size limits for large documents.

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 filler, and the essential scope statement (what is compared, and the two input modes) is front-loaded ahead of the caveat. Every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden — and it does, enumerating metadata differences, sentence-level diffs with verbatim excerpts, and the partial/not-a-redline caveat. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 50% — document_a/document_b are documented but rin and include_text are not. The description compensates by explaining that a RIN resolves to the latest proposed-and-final pair, and by implying that text diffing (and thus include_text) produces the sentence-level excerpts. It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, though include_text's exact toggle effect is left implicit.

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 (Compare) and resource (Federal Register documents / proposed-vs-final rule for a RIN) and spells out exactly what the comparison yields: metadata differences plus sentence-level text differences with verbatim excerpts. This is clearly distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like get_regulatory_document or get_regulatory_timeline.

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 tells the agent the two ways to invoke it — pass two document numbers, or pass a RIN to auto-select the latest proposed and final rule. That is clear input-selection context, but it never states when this tool should be preferred over siblings such as get_regulatory_document or get_cfr_changes, so there is no explicit 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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: watchlisted parts are refreshed daily while any other part is read on first request (a latency/caching implication), plus the authoritative-source caveat that the eCFR is not the official legal edition. That is substantive context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the payoff (what changes and what metadata comes back), then refresh behavior, then input forms, then caveats. Dense but nearly every clause carries distinct information; the one long enumeration sentence is the only mild drag on readability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full return-value burden and does so: it lists the fields returned, the date semantics, the links, and the related Federal Register documents. Combined with the refresh model and the official-edition disclaimer, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 71%, and the schema documents 'since' (default 90 days ago), 'until', 'section', 'cfr_part' and 'watchlist', but leaves limit and cfr_title bare. The description compensates by explaining the accepted input combinations (title+part, or section, or watchlist) and the 63.2 / 1910 / 63 examples, which is meaning beyond the field names themselves.

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?

Names a specific resource (codified CFR text changes from the eCFR) and enumerates exactly what a result contains: version/amendment/issue dates, substantive-vs-removed marking, eCFR page and XML links, and candidate Federal Register documents. The closing clause 'Version metadata, not a text diff' cleanly separates it from diff-oriented siblings like compare_regulatory_documents.

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?

Gives concrete invocation conditions: supply cfr_title + cfr_part, or a section like 63.2, or a watchlist with CFR filters. It also signals a scope boundary ('not a text diff'). It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool to use for text comparison, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results come from structured fields only, and 'Dates are calendar dates as published' warns the agent that no timezone normalization occurs. It still says nothing about the 50-item limit or truncation behavior, which for an open-world list tool is a meaningful omission.

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 filler. The primary purpose leads, the filterable dimensions follow, and the date-semantics caveat is a single tight clause. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 an 8-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema tool with low schema coverage, the description covers the filtering story but omits the pagination/limit contract and the result shape (e.g. whether each deadline carries the owning document). The core call is understandable, but an agent could over-fetch or misjudge what comes back.

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 only 38%, so the description must carry weight. It does: it maps the core filters (date range, agency, keywords, watchlists) and clarifies that 'keywords' is text search and that 'watchlist' refers to the caller's own watchlist, while 'comment deadlines or effective dates' implies the deadline_type enum. It leaves limit and document_type unexplained, so it compensates substantially but not fully.

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 names a specific verb+resource (retrieve comment deadlines / effective dates) and states the source of truth ('the documents' structured fields'), which separates it from narrative-oriented siblings like get_regulatory_timeline or get_regulatory_intelligence_brief. It does not, however, explicitly disambiguate itself from the closest sibling, get_regulatory_timeline, so it stops short of a 5.

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 word 'Upcoming' signals the intended forward-looking use case, and the filter list implies when the tool fits. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. a timeline or alerts tool) for cases where the agent wants broader context, leaving usage to inference.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the response can include a conditional Regulations.gov docket title / comment period / comment count "(when configured)", and that the tool also resolves documents that are still on Public Inspection rather than published.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the rest is a dense but useful enumeration of returned fields rather than filler. The single sentence is long and a little list-heavy, which slightly hurts readability, but every item carries information an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape and does so thoroughly (status, agencies, dates, RINs, dockets, CFR parts, links, deadline history, config-dependent fields). The main omissions are failure behavior for an unknown/invalid document number and any note on whether the conditional docket fields require extra setup to be visible.

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?

There is a single required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with an example value (2026-12345) and a regex pattern supplied in the schema itself. The description adds no format, normalization or lookup-alternative detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and a single, precisely scoped resource ("Full structured record for one Federal Register document") and then enumerates the content it returns. The "one document" framing implicitly separates it from the list/search siblings such as search_federal_regulations and list_regulatory_alerts, and the Public Inspection sentence adds a second distinct retrieval mode.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the field enumeration and the Public Inspection clause tell an agent this is the per-document lookup, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus search_federal_regulations or get_regulatory_timeline. An agent can infer the routing, but must do the inference itself.

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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: the brief is 'built from source fields, not generated guesses' and self-reports 'confidence and limitations', which tells the agent how much to trust the output. It omits latency/cost and whether the brief is cached or composed per call.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the deliverable and then enumerates its contents; no filler or marketing language. The enumeration is long but each item corresponds to an actual section of the returned brief, so it earns its space.

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 no output schema, the description must (and largely does) describe the return shape: sections, sources, confidence, and limitations. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is routing guidance versus sibling tools, which is a usage concern rather than a return-value gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema's terse 'Watchlist name or id.' by explaining the watchlist's effect on the output ('who may be affected (from your watchlist when given)'), which is real added semantic value; document_number is left to the schema's example and pattern.

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 states a specific deliverable for a specific resource: a 'structured, source-linked brief for one document' with an enumerated set of sections. It reads clearly as a retrieval/synthesis tool, but it never names a sibling (e.g., get_regulatory_document) to draw the line between a raw document fetch and a synthesized brief, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it should call this when it wants a single-document brief. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing among the many siblings (compare_regulatory_documents, get_regulatory_document, get_regulatory_timeline), and no stated prerequisites.

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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), but the description adds genuine behavioral context not present in structured fields: link confidence semantics ('confirmed' shared RIN vs 'probable' shared docket) and the data-integrity rule that missing stages are never fabricated. That is real value beyond annotations.

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 dense sentences that front-load the returned lifecycle before the input guidance. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the stage enumeration is slightly list-heavy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns; it does so at a medium level (lifecycle stages, observed events, deadline history, link confidence) but omits response shape, pagination, and the behavior when no identifier is given despite zero required parameters.

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 33% (only document_number is documented), so the description must compensate. It names all three accepted identifiers, signaling they are alternatives, but adds no format or precedence guidance for rin/rulemaking_id and does not resolve what happens when none of the zero required parameters is supplied.

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 states a specific resource (the lifecycle of a rulemaking) and enumerates the stages returned — proposed rule, comment periods, final rule, effective date, corrections, withdrawals. It is clearly distinguishable from a single-document fetch, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like get_regulatory_document or get_regulatory_deadlines.

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 tells the agent how to invoke the tool ('Give a RIN, a rulemaking_id or a document_number') but never says when to choose this tool over get_regulatory_document or get_regulatory_deadlines, which cover overlapping ground. Usage is implied by the topic rather than stated.

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?

The description explains the non-obvious side effect that justifies readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false: reading marks alerts delivered unless peek=true, and it defines what an empty result means. It doesn't cover pagination, whether delivery marks are permanent, or per-account scope, so it isn't exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and ordering, then the behavioral caveat and empty-result semantics. The list of alert categories is long but informative rather than redundant; size is appropriate for carrying side-effect information annotations don't state.

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 no output schema, 4 optional parameters, and 25% schema coverage, the description carries a lot of burden. It covers the consumption semantics and empty-state meaning well, but an agent still lacks limit/status behavior and pagination guidance needed to invoke it optimally.

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 only 25% (just 'watchlist'), so the schema documents almost nothing. The description adds real meaning for peek (reading consumes alerts; peek avoids that) and implied semantics for an empty result, but says nothing about limit (max 100) or the pending/all status enum, leaving half the parameters unexplained anywhere.

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+resource ('New alerts for this account's watchlists'), gives the ordering ('highest priority first'), and enumerates the alert categories covered. It clearly covers the alert-listing niche, though it never names which sibling (e.g., get_regulatory_deadlines) is the alternative for non-alert views.

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 implies the usage context ('New alerts', 'An empty list means nothing new') and warns that reading consumes the alerts unless peek=true, which is genuinely useful selection guidance. But it never says when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_regulatory_deadlines or rate_regulatory_alert, and there are no explicit exclusions.

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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds that the profile is optional and that action=get is the read path, but for the set path it never says whether values merge with or replace the existing profile, nor what a get returns.

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 compact sentences that front-load what the profile is and then the field inventory; there is no padding. It could still be tightened, since the field list repeats enum values an agent can read from the schema.

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 an 8-parameter, no-required-params config tool with no output schema, the description covers the field surface and the get action reasonably. The gaps are the set semantics (replace vs merge), what get returns, and the ambiguity between the two activity/interest fields, which no structured field resolves since the schema has zero descriptions.

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%, so the description bears the naming burden, and it does name nearly every field (industries, NAICS codes, business size, regions, regulated activities, interests, federal contractor status) plus the action parameter. It adds no meaning beyond the names, though — it doesn't clarify the distinction between regulated_activities and regulatory_interests, the NAICS code format, or the accepted region strings.

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 states the resource (an optional business profile) and enumerates the fields it holds, with the title supplying the set/read verb pair and 'action=get reads it' confirming the read path. It is clear what the tool manages, though it never explicitly says 'set/patch' in the body or distinguishes itself from the regulatory-content siblings.

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?

'Optional business profile used to suggest relevance' plus 'Give only what helps monitoring' implies the profile is a soft relevance-tuning aid, not a required setup step. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no statement of which other tools consume the profile, and no advice on when a caller should skip it entirely.

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?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds per-action parameter requirements but says nothing about what delete or pause actually does, whether deletion is reversible, or any auth expectations. No contradiction with annotations, just modest 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?

Three tightly packed sentences lead with the purpose and follow with action-specific requirements, with no filler. Semicolon-joined clauses are dense but every clause carries information.

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 6-action, nested-object, destructive tool with 12 siblings and no output schema, the description covers parameter usage but omits return/result expectations, the irreversible nature of delete, and any sibling disambiguation. Adequate for invoking the tool, incomplete for choosing it confidently.

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?

With only 40% schema coverage, the description meaningfully compensates: it tells the agent watchlist (name or id) is required for every non-list action and that update accepts filters, alert_preferences or new_name. This conditional requirement mapping is not expressible in the flat schema and is genuinely additive, though the nested filters/alert_preferences details are left to 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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Manage this account's watchlists') and the title enumerates the operations (list, update, pause, resume, delete), so an agent knows the domain immediately. It does not, however, differentiate itself from ambiguous siblings like track_federal_regulations or list_regulatory_alerts, which keeps it below a 5.

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 conditional parameter guidance ('action=list needs nothing else; other actions need watchlist'), which implies per-action usage. But it never states when to choose this tool over the many regulatory siblings or when-not to use it, so routing guidance is only implied.

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?

Annotations already disclose the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description's added value is the side-effect disclosure that 'stop_tracking' suppresses future alerts for that document. It does not cover permissions, whether re-rating is allowed, or what happens to the prior rating, which matters given the non-idempotent hint.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it spends most of its length re-listing the six enum values already present in the schema, which is redundant rather than additive. The one genuinely useful clause is the parenthetical on stop_tracking.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and a clean annotation set, the description covers purpose and the key side effect, but omits the result of rating (confirmation, persistence) and any usage conditions. It is adequate but leaves clear 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: document_number is documented in the schema, but the rating enum has no schema description. The description partially compensates by glossing each value's meaning and clarifying stop_tracking, though 'more_like_this' and 'already_reviewed' are left unexplained.

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 uses a clear verb+resource construction ('Tell FedReg Tracker how relevant a document was') and enumerates the feedback actions, so the agent knows this submits relevance feedback on a document. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like list_regulatory_alerts or manage_regulatory_watchlist, which are only inferable from their names.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing (give feedback on an alert) and the semantics of the rating values, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. An agent must infer that this is the write-side counterpart to the alert-listing tools.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real context beyond them: 'live from FederalRegister.gov' (freshness/source), 'Every result states its legal status (a proposed rule is never binding)' and 'official links' (return-shape disclosure where no output schema exists), plus 'No account needed' (no-auth requirement). It stops short of pagination or rate-limit 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and source. The document-type parenthetical, the filter list, and the return-value note each carry distinct information, and even 'No account needed' earns its place as an auth prerequisite. No 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 18 mostly-optional parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, source, filter surface, return content and auth requirement adequately. The main gap is that it says nothing about pagination/ordering semantics or how multiple filters combine, which matters for a tool of this breadth.

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?

At 44% schema coverage across 18 params, the description compensates well by mapping natural-language filter categories to parameters: keywords (query), agency, document type, publication/comment/effective dates, CFR title and part, RIN, docket or industry. Omitted are pagination/ordering (page, limit, order) and the 'significant' flag, so it is not fully exhaustive but clearly adds meaning over the schema text.

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+resource ('Search U.S. Federal Register documents') and enumerates the document classes it covers (final rules, proposed rules, notices, presidential documents), which cleanly separates it from the single-document sibling get_regulatory_document. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts with siblings like track_federal_regulations or compare_regulatory_documents, so the differentiation is inferred 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 enumeration of filter dimensions implies the tool is for broad retrieval and 'No account needed' covers one prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives (e.g., use get_regulatory_document for a known document, use track_federal_regulations for monitoring). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false and destructive=false. The description goes beyond them with real operational context: the watchlist is persistent, monitoring runs on the tool's own schedule with no chat open, alerts and deadline reminders are queued, and an access key is required.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then the behavioral payoff of persistence/background monitoring, then a concrete input example. The example earns its length by demonstrating the nested filter shape; little is wasted.

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 non-idempotent write tool with three top-level parameters, no output schema and low schema coverage, the description supplies the missing essentials: what gets created, that it persists and monitors autonomously, and the auth prerequisite. Only the distinction from manage_regulatory_watchlist is left unaddressed.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. Its worked example clarifies how a natural-language request maps onto the nested filters object (keywords array, cfr array with title), which is genuinely useful, but it illustrates only a fraction of the filter dimensions and adds nothing on name or alert_preferences.

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 and resource: 'Save a persistent watchlist' with FedReg Tracker monitoring the Federal Register and Public Inspection. This is clearly distinct from read-side siblings like list_regulatory_alerts and get_regulatory_deadlines, though it never explicitly names the potentially overlapping manage_regulatory_watchlist sibling.

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 the use case (set up ongoing background monitoring rather than a one-off query) but offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to alternatives such as manage_regulatory_watchlist for editing an existing watchlist. 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.