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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavioral traits. It states it 'covers all federal agencies' and lists examples, which provides scope context. However, it does not describe output format, pagination behavior, or any side effects (though a search is inherently read-only). The description is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then provides useful detail about covered document types and agencies. Every word adds value.

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 simple search tool with two well-described parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It conveys the core purpose, document scope, and agency coverage. It lacks explicit guidance on result behavior, but that is less critical for a search tool and could be inferred from 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 100% for both parameters (limit and query), and each has a clear schema description. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('US Federal Register') with clear scope ('rules, proposed rules, and notices'). It also names covered agencies, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like federal_register_document (likely a document fetcher) and regulations_gov_search (a different registry).

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 clear usage context: searching across the Federal Register for rulemaking documents. It mentions coverage of all federal agencies, which helps the agent know its breadth, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like federal_register_document or regulations_gov_search.

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