get_corrections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the returned data (CFR references, corrective actions, error dates, FR citations) and the effect of parameters (limit caps, since_year filters). No contradictions. It does not describe authentication or rate limits, but given the read-only nature, this is acceptable.

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 short, with a clear lead sentence, a bullet-point-like list of returned fields, a use case, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value, and no redundant information is present.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, read-only retrieval) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, what it returns, parameter behavior, and a concrete example. No critical information is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'limit' (default 50, max 1000) and 'since_year' (filters to year >= year, with an example for Title 48). 'title_number' is implicitly covered by the main purpose phrase. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare field names and defaults.

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 verb ('Get') and the resource ('editorial corrections for a CFR title'). It lists the returned fields, making the purpose specific. The tool is distinct from siblings like compare_versions or get_cfr_content, which are about different operations.

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 provides a use case ('checking whether a section's current text has been corrected since its last amendment') and explains parameter filters (limit, since_year). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list alternative tools for similar tasks, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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