get_cfr_content

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive nature. Description adds valuable behavioral details: automatic date resolution, handling of common prefix mistakes, and warning that chapter scope can be >1 MB. No contradictions.

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?

Well structured: core purpose first, then usage details, then special notes. Slightly verbose with phrases like 'primary workhorse', but each sentence adds value. No wasted lines.

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?

Covers all aspects needed for correct usage: scope specification, date handling, output format (clean text vs XML), title/chapter context for FAR/DFARS, and common errors. Output schema exists, so return value documentation is not required.

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 0%, but description thoroughly explains each parameter: raw_xml boolean, date default behavior, scope levels (section/subpart/part/chapter), title_number default 48, and type flexibility (int/string with prefix stripping). Greatly compensates for schema gaps.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get the full text of a CFR section, subpart, or part' and calls it 'the primary workhorse for reading regulatory text', which is a specific verb+resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like search_cfr (search) and compare_versions (compare) by focusing on retrieval.

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 (reading regulatory text), advises narrowest scope, warns against using today's date due to eCFR lag, and notes automatic prefix stripping. Lacks explicit alternatives to sibling tools but context is clear.

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