gov.federal-register-recent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states it's a chronological feed and the types. It does not disclose if the tool is read-only, any authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on empty results. This is insufficient for full transparency.

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 a single sentence that effectively conveys purpose and use case. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, making it highly efficient.

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 absence of an output schema and 6 parameters, the description lacks detail on return format, pagination, or parameter interactions. It provides enough for basic usage but not complete context for a change-detection workflow without additional assumptions.

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?

The schema has 50% description coverage; the description adds no further explanation for parameters like page, limit, since, until, agency. The schema already has basic descriptions for some, but the description could have clarified usage (e.g., how agency slugs work) but does not. Value added beyond schema is minimal.

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 it provides a chronological feed of Federal Register documents and lists the specific types (RULE, PRORULE, NOTICE, PRESDOCU). It also notes the use case: compliance change-detection, which distinguishes it from other tools like 'gov.federal-register' (likely a general search).

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 explicitly recommends use for compliance change-detection, indicating the context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings, though the distinct purpose is clear.

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