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. 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.