get_cfr_content

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations by detailing return behavior: default parsed clean text, inclusion of tables and editorial_notes, raw_xml toggle, size caveats, and automatic stripping of common prefix mistakes. It also warns about eCFR date lag and potential 404s, providing valuable operational 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?

The description is well-structured and dense with practical information. Each block (purpose, usage notes, chapter mapping, common mistakes) earns its place. The use of bullet-like examples and clear warnings makes it easy to parse, despite being longer than average, because it covers complex variable options.

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?

The description explains return content, parameter selection, date handling, common input variations, and title-specific context (Title 48 FAR/DFARS). Combined with the output schema and annotations, this gives an agent all necessary context to invoke the tool correctly and avoid pitfalls, making the description effectively self-sufficient.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates thoroughly. Every scoping parameter (section, subpart, part, chapter, appendix) has examples and size guidance. It also explains date behavior, raw_xml semantics, title_number default, and type flexibility (int/string). This is model guidance that the bare schema cannot provide.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function: retrieving full text of CFR sections, subparts, parts, or appendixes. It goes beyond mere naming by explaining output types (parsed clean text, raw XML) and specific resource scopes, distinguishing it effectively from sibling tools like search or structure listing.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('primary workhorse for reading regulatory text'), how to scope requests ('narrowest scope possible'), what to avoid (chapters >1 MB, using today's date), and concrete examples for each parameter. It also explains date auto-resolution and common input normalization, making it clear how to get successful results.

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