get_docket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so well by listing the exact return fields and stating that a non-existent ID raises a not-found error. It omits minor details like authentication or rate limits, but for a single-fetch tool this is adequately transparent.

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 well structured: a front-loaded purpose sentence, a concise list of return fields and error behavior, then the single argument with an example. There is no filler and every sentence contributes actionable information.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, the error case, where to get valid IDs, and what the argument should look like. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 input schema provides only the parameter name with no description, so the description must compensate entirely. It does: it defines docket_id as an exact ID, gives a concrete example ('BIS-2024-0047'), and tells the agent to obtain IDs from search_dockets rather than guessing. This is exemplary parameter guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('one docket's full detail'), and a source ('Regulations.gov'). It also distinguishes itself from search_dockets by requiring an exact ID and explicitly points to that sibling for finding IDs, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage context: use this tool when you have an exact docket ID and need full detail, and it explicitly tells the agent to get IDs from search_dockets rather than guessing. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer list_documents, so it misses a full when-not comparison.

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