Search ECFS proceedings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Search' implies a safe read, but the description does not confirm this is non-mutating, nor does it mention pagination behavior, result shape, or any auth/rate-limit context. Minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 well-formed sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally tight.

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 read-only search with zero required parameters and fully described schema, the definition is minimally adequate. No output schema exists, so the description could say more about what results contain, and it offers no routing guidance against seven siblings.

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 all three parameters (name, limit, offset) are already documented with examples and defaults. The description only alludes to the 'name' filter via 'by docket number', adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (proceedings/dockets) in the FCC ECFS system, clarifying that 'proceedings' means dockets. This implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like search_documents and search_filings, though it never names them, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives only an example query ('e.g. by docket number') but no guidance on when to choose this tool over ecfs_search_documents or ecfs_search_filings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the boundary from the resource noun alone.

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