search_cfr

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: search behavior, default current_only, result caps, ordering limitations, and date filter format. No contradiction with annotations.

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 moderately long but well-structured with clear paragraphs and line breaks. Every sentence adds value, and the critical warnings are front-loaded. Minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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 11 parameters, 1 required, and high complexity, the description covers search behavior, defaults, caps, filters, date format, and ordering. Existence of output schema reduces burden to explain return values. Nearly complete, though a brief note about pagination could help.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the purpose and constraints of key parameters: current_only (detailed with pitfall), hierarchy filters (title, chapter, etc.), last_modified_after/before (format and use), and per_page cap. Could be more explicit about each parameter individually.

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 'Full-text search across the Code of Federal Regulations' and specifies that it returns 'matching sections with excerpts, headings, scores, and hierarchy,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_cfr_content and get_cfr_structure.

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 critical usage guidance: set current_only=True to avoid historical duplicates, use hierarchy filters to handle the 10,000 result cap, and notes only 'relevance' ordering is supported. Could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use this tool or suggesting alternatives.

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