Summarize fresh Federal Register and rulemaking signals for one sector with severity, source links, and action read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| agency | No | ||
| sector | No | ||
| jurisdiction | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist. Description implies a read-only summarization but does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
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 sentence that lists key outputs (severity, source links, action read). Compact but lacks structure; could be split for clarity.
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, 5 optional parameters, and no annotations. Description omits return format, pagination, and behavior when parameters omitted. Incomplete for agent to reliably invoke.
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 has 0% description coverage. The description only hints at 'sector' but does not explain other parameters (hours, limit, agency, jurisdiction). Agent gets no added meaning beyond parameter names.
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 verb 'summarize', resource 'Federal Register and rulemaking signals', and specifies outputs: severity, source links, action read. Distinct from siblings like 'federal_register' and 'regulations_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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'regulatory_pulse' or 'federal_register'. Does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.