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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the result is date_bucket buckets each containing a suggested_api_call that is 'safe to run' and explains the problem it solves (duplicate/missing filings in large result sets). It doesn't cover all possible edge cases (e.g., rate limits, error handling), but gives solid behavioral context for a planning tool.

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 two sentences that pack purpose, usage, and outcome efficiently. It front-loads the core purpose and then explains when to use and why, with no redundant phrases or fluff.

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 7 fully-documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently outlines what the tool returns (buckets with suggested_api_call) and when to use it. It lacks details on potential errors or pagination behavior beyond the conceptual, but it is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that this tool shares the same filters as ecfs_search_filings, implying parameter semantics are identical to that sibling, which is useful context beyond the individual field descriptions. However, it does not elaborate on any parameter details beyond the schema's own documentation.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('download plan for a filings search'), and explicitly contrasts it with the sibling ecfs_search_filings, distinguishing it as returning date-bucketed suggested API calls instead of a page of results. This makes its purpose unmistakable.

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 names when to use this tool ('before ecfs_search_filings for dockets with thousands of filings') and why (avoiding duplicate/missing filings from plain offset/limit paging), providing both positive and negative guidance by implication. It also names the alternative tool.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation and the ID parameter is clear, but there is no disclosure of response shape, error behavior, idempotency, or what happens when a filing is not found.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place and the core action is stated first.

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 fetch tool the definition is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema and no annotations it does not explain what the returned filing contains or how failures are signaled, leaving a small but real gap for an agent.

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 100% and id_submission is already documented as 'The ECFS submission ID of the filing to fetch.' The description's reference to submission ID adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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'), names the resource ('ECFS filing'), and scopes it to a single item retrieved by submission ID. It is distinguishable from sibling search tools, though it does not explicitly name the alternative or contrast with ecfs_search_filings.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving exactly one filing when the submission ID is known, but it does not state when to prefer it over ecfs_search_filings or other siblings, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required ID.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It does disclose the read-only, non-destructive nature of a listing operation, but it omits any mention of authentication, rate limits, or the structure of the returned data. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple list tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently conveys the action and object without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description states what it returns (the list of inboxes), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the basic behavior. The lack of return format detail is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not elaborate on parameter usage. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional parameter context is required.

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 action ('List') and the specific resource ('available inboxes for non-docketed filings in ECFS'). It distinguishes itself from sibling search/get tools by its listing nature, making its purpose 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, such as search_filings or get_filing. It doesn't mention preconditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

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 usefully discloses that the api_key is injected automatically and that the tool targets public ECFS API paths. However, it does not disclose response format, error behavior, rate limits, validation behavior, or what happens for invalid paths, leaving some important behavior unstated for a generic raw-request tool.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('escape hatch') and immediately provides the single most important invocation detail ('api_key is added automatically'), making it easy to parse and act on.

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 tool with only two parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description plus schema is largely sufficient: the path is required, params are optional, and authentication is handled. The absence of an output schema and the generic nature of a raw request mean a little more context about response handling could help, but the tool is not missing any essential call-related information.

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 100%, and the schema already documents both 'path' and 'params' with clear meanings, including that 'params' should exclude api_key. The description mostly repeats this by saying the api_key is added automatically, adding little new semantic value beyond what the schema provides. The baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the tool as an 'escape hatch' for calling 'any ECFS public API path/query parameters not covered by the other tools,' giving a specific verb and resource scope. It also differentiates itself from the sibling tools by explicitly targeting uncovered endpoints and parameters.

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 states when to use the tool: for endpoints or parameters 'not covered by the other tools,' which clearly routes an agent away from the specialized siblings. It also gives a practical prerequisite by noting the api_key is added automatically and should not be included. It does not explicitly enumerate the sibling alternatives, but the condition is otherwise clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns metadata (filename, page count, byte size, OCR status, viewer location) and explicitly states it does not return file contents, which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any error behavior. The description is honest about its read-only nature but lacks depth on operational constraints.

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 two sentences, both dense with information. It front-loads the core action and resource, then specifies the return type and its exclusion. No wasted words; every phrase contributes to understanding.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does, what it returns, and what it does not return. It does not mention limitations like maximum number of IDs, pagination, or error handling, but given the low complexity, these are minor omissions. The description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool 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 schema already fully documents the single parameter (id_submission) with format (comma-separated) and purpose. The description adds context by saying 'one or more ECFS filings' and reiterates 'by submission ID', but this adds little beyond the schema. Since coverage is 100%, the description does not need to compensate, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (list documents), the resource (attachments of ECFS filings), and the scope (by submission ID). It also explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by specifying that it returns metadata, not file contents, which aligns with the function name 'search_documents' and distinguishes it from tools like ecfs_get_filing or ecfs_search_filings.

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 context: use this when you have submission ID(s) and need document metadata. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous given the sibling list. A small gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when to prefer ecfs_get_filing over this tool for a single filing's documents.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it searches and filters; it does not describe what the response contains, whether results are paginated, how filters combine with free-text search, or any rate/limit behavior.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the core action and then summarizes the available filters. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, pagination, or how this search relates to sibling tools. The current text is adequate as a label but incomplete for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds a high-level summary of the filter options but no additional meaning beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Search filings') and the resource (FCC ECFS filings), and it lists the key filter dimensions. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling ecfs_search_documents, so the boundary between 'filings' and 'documents' is left implicit.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ecfs_search_documents or ecfs_search_proceedings. It also does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Search', implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state that it returns a list, that it is safe, or any pagination behavior. The schema covers limit/offset, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb.

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?

One sentence, no filler, front-loaded with the action. Efficient and appropriately sized.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It tells the agent what it does but not what the response looks like or any special behavior. Since the schema covers parameters, it's adequate but could benefit from stating the return type or listing that it is a read operation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's 'e.g. by docket number' duplicates the schema's explanation of the 'name' parameter and adds no new meaning; limit and offset are not addressed in the description.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('proceedings (dockets)') in the FCC ECFS system, with an example filter by docket number. The term 'proceedings' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ecfs_search_filings and ecfs_search_documents, even though siblings aren't named explicitly.

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 implies usage for searching dockets/proceedings but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling search tools (e.g., search_filings, search_documents). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned; the only hint is the docket-number example.

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