law.federal-register

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on empty results. For a search tool, this is insufficient.

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, concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could benefit from additional structure, such as listing key parameters or usage examples.

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 lack of an output schema and six parameters, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return format, pagination (limit/max=20), date range filtering, or agency filtering. The sibling gov.federal-register-recent suggests a different use case, but no comparison is made.

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 only 17% (only 'agency' has a description). The description mentions document types that map to the 'type' enum but does not explicitly explain parameters like q, limit, since, until, or agency. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 US Federal Register documents and lists document types (proposed rules, final rules, notices). It distinguishes from sibling tools like law.case-search and law.cfr-section, though it does not differentiate from the similar sibling gov.federal-register-recent.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gov.federal-register-recent or other legal search tools. The description implies usage for searching but does not provide context on preferred scenarios or exclusions.

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