search_dockets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a solid job: it discloses exact returned fields, explains match_context as a plain-text snippet, and exposes pagination limits plus API behavior. It does not discuss auth or error behavior, which is a minor omission for a search operation.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by return semantics, downstream usage, and a compact Args list. Every sentence earns its place and no filler 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?

Even with no output schema, the description explains the return values, field meanings, and includes usage examples. Given four parameters and no annotations, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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%, yet the Args section fully compensates by defining every parameter, including valid ranges for page and page_size, an example query, and example agency filters. This adds real meaning beyond the schema's types 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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Full-text search'), a specific resource ('federal rulemaking dockets on Regulations.gov'), and the response shape. It also orients the tool relative to siblings by noting the returned id feeds get_docket and list_documents.

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 downstream routing ('Use the returned id with get_docket for the abstract or list_documents for its documents') and practical search advice ('narrow the query instead of paging deeper'). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus siblings, but the context is strong.

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