US Federal Register Watch MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It signals a read-style listing and a deadline sort, but never states that a paid subscription token is required (only hinted by 'PRO'), nor anything about result limits, pagination, or return shape.

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 no filler; the key constraint (open comment periods) and ordering (deadline first) come first. Its brevity is close to under-specification but avoids waste.

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 annotations, no output schema, and one of two parameters undocumented, the description should do more: it omits the auth/subscription requirement, expected return content, and result limits. As written, an agent knows the topic but not how to call it successfully.

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%: access_token is documented in the schema but keyword is not. The description mentions 'keyword/agency' yet the schema has no agency parameter, so it introduces a mismatch and adds little clarifying detail about how keyword matching works.

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 resource (proposed rules with open comment periods), a filter (keyword/agency), and an ordering (deadline first), so the agent can tell what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from the siblings reg_search and reg_watch, so it falls 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 'comment periods still open' framing implies the use case (finding rules open for public comment), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs reg_search/reg_watch guidance and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the resource description.

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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does disclose cost ('FREE'), the hard result cap, and the document types returned. It stays silent on ordering guarantees beyond 'latest', result quality, rate limits, or whether there is any auth requirement.

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus a short clause; 'FREE.' leads with the cost fact an agent most needs, and every remaining word carries information (cap, document types, example inputs).

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly: what goes in, what comes back, and how many. Only the ranking/recency detail and sibling routing are left implicit.

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 0% and the single parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description has to compensate — and it does, giving concrete keyword examples ('PFAS', 'overtime', 'crypto') that make the expected input granularity clear. It stops short of stating matching semantics (full-text vs title-only).

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 verb+resource combination (search Federal Register documents) and pins down scope with the result cap of 5 and the document types covered (rules, proposed rules, notices). Siblings are not named, so the boundary with reg_watch and open_comments must be inferred from 'Latest 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no sibling is mentioned. The phrase 'Latest 5' implies a quick one-shot snapshot, leaving the agent to infer that reg_watch is the ongoing-monitoring alternative rather than being told so.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'PRO' and supported document types, but does not state authentication requirements beyond what the schema's access_token description covers, nor does it describe rate limits, defaults, pagination, or return 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 a single compact sentence with no filler, and the filter information is front-loaded. The leading 'PRO.' is unclear, and the brevity leaves important details unstated, but it is not verbose.

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?

This is a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 20% schema description coverage. The description covers some filter semantics but omits date formats, defaults, authentication context beyond the schema, and behavioral details needed to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful context for agencies (format example) and types (rule, proposed, notice, presidential) and implies the since parameter, but it omits date format details, keyword behavior, and access_token semantics.

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 indicates that the tool returns documents since a date filtered by keywords, agency slugs, and document types, so the resource is inferable. However, it lacks a clear action verb (e.g., 'list' or 'retrieve') and does not distinguish this tool from the sibling reg_search.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use reg_watch versus reg_search or open_comments. The filters imply a monitoring/search use case, but the description provides no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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