find_far_definition

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it fetches the full section server-side, parses it, and returns only matching paragraphs, noting that common terms may yield many results. It also mentions the large file size (~109KB XML), which helps set performance expectations.

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 paragraphs with no unnecessary words. The first paragraph states the core purpose, and the second paragraph adds important usage notes. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 the tool's complexity (large XML, server-side parsing, multiple parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers most essential aspects: what it does, how it works, key constraints, and parameter details. It does not describe return format, but the output schema likely handles that. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'term' must be at least 3 characters and explains 'max_matches' default (20) and maximum (100). However, the 'date' parameter is not described, leaving its purpose unclear. The added constraints and defaults are helpful, but incomplete coverage for date prevents a higher score.

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 states the tool searches for a term's definition within a specific, well-known source (FAR 2.101). It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('FAR 2.101 definitions'), and explains the behavior of fetching the full section and returning matching paragraphs. This sets it apart from sibling tools like 'lookup_far_clause' or 'search_cfr' which serve different purposes.

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 indicates the tool is for finding definitions in FAR 2.101 and mentions constraints such as term length and max_matches caps. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or suggest alternatives among the sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer use cases.

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