Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_presidential_memorandaB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only describes the search scope and category, with no mention of result format, pagination behavior, search matching semantics, or any access/rate-limit considerations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences long with no filler. It front-loads the core action and follows with a brief, useful differentiation from executive orders; every sentence earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  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 needs to explain return values, pagination, or how search terms combine. It currently only states what is searched and how memoranda relate to executive orders, leaving agents to guess response structure and behavior.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  All five parameters already have descriptive schema entries (term, year, president, page, per_page), and schema coverage is 100%. The description's 'by president, year, or keyword' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description begins with 'Search for presidential memoranda by president, year, or keyword,' using a specific verb and resource and naming the main filter dimensions. It also distinguishes memoranda from executive orders, which helps separate this tool from sibling tools like search_executive_orders.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives useful context by saying memoranda are 'similar to executive orders but typically used for less formal directives,' which implies when this tool is appropriate. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, leaving the guidance implicit rather than directive.

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

• search_proclamationsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds domain context about what proclamations are but does not reveal search behavior such as pagination defaults, full-text vs metadata matching, result ordering, or any limitations. The schema reveals page/per_page parameters, but the description remains silent on their effects.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then a brief clarifying example of what proclamations cover. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema details.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple search tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and filter dimensions. However, it omits any mention of result format, pagination behavior, or whether parameters can be combined, which leaves room for ambiguity in a tool that otherwise relies entirely on this free-text description.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the primary filters ('by president, year, or keyword') which adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. It does not enrich the meaning of page or per_page, but the schema already documents those adequately.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description starts with the specific verb 'Search' and names the resource 'presidential proclamations', then lists the three primary filters (president, year, keyword). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_executive_orders and search_presidential_memoranda by focusing specifically on proclamations.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage when the user needs proclamations and even gives example use cases (holidays, awareness months, trade actions). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling search tools or state when not to use it, leaving the exclusion guidance implied rather than stated.

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

• get_agencyA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists returned fields and implies a read-only operation, but omits error handling, slug format expectations, rate limits, or data freshness. The behavioral burden is only partially met.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  A single, front-loaded sentence states the verb, resource, and deliverables with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the essential return fields. It could mention that slugs come from get_agencies, but the schema's example already provides necessary context, making this complete enough.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema provides full coverage of the only parameter (slug) with a description and examples, so the description need not elaborate. It adds no additional meaning beyond calling the agency specific.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as a 'specific federal agency', clearly distinguishing it from sibling get_agencies which handles plural listing. It also enumerates the data fields returned (description, URL, recent document counts), leaving no ambiguity about scope.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The phrase 'specific federal agency' implies this tool is for retrieving details on one agency, as opposed to listing agencies. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_agencies or provide exclusions, though the intent is clear enough.

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

• get_executive_orderA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses return fields (title, abstract, signing date, links to full text) and implies a read operation, but doesn't mention error behavior or other edge cases.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, no redundant words. Efficient and clear.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned. It could mention error handling, but the scope and return format are sufficiently covered.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description already includes the example (e.g., 14067). The tool description repeats the example but adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states it gets a specific executive order by EO number, with an example. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_executive_orders and get_recent_executive_orders.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage when you have a specific EO number, but doesn't explicitly contrast with search or list alternatives. Context is clear, but no exclusionary guidance is provided.

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

• get_documentA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain what the tool actually returns (e.g., metadata vs. full content) or how it handles missing documents. The only behavioral detail is the document number format, which is more of an input constraint than a behavioral trait. This leaves significant ambiguity, especially given the existence of get_document_text.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, but no output schema exists and the description does not clarify the return value structure. The ambiguity about whether it returns full text or metadata, especially given the sibling get_document_text, makes the description incomplete for an agent needing to select the correct tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the exact format 'YYYY-NNNNN', which is more explicit than the schema's example ('2024-02154'). This provides additional semantic precision for the document_number parameter.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description is specific: 'Fetch a Federal Register document by its document number.' It clearly identifies the action (fetch), resource (Federal Register document), and identifier (document number). It also states it works for any document type, distinguishing it from type-specific siblings like get_executive_order.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever you have a document number. 'Works for any document type' hints at its general-purpose nature, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The sibling tool get_document_text might be more appropriate for full-text extraction, but this is not stated.

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

• get_public_inspection_documentsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the data state (pre-publication) but does not mention whether results are paginated, sorted, or what fields are returned. The absence of any mention of read-only behavior or response structure leaves significant gaps.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two short sentences that deliver the purpose and a practical use case without any filler or redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate for basic invocation and understanding of what it returns. However, it lacks details about pagination, date range, or the exact response structure, which could be useful for an agent deciding how to process the results.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics, and the schema already confirms 100% coverage with no undocumented fields.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool gets documents currently on public inspection before official Federal Register publication. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like get_document or search_documents, which target already-published content.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides a clear use case ('useful for seeing what will be published tomorrow') and implies a temporal context that differentiates it from published-document retrieval. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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

• search_documentsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It correctly implies a read-only search (the verb 'search') and lists filtering capabilities. However, it does not disclose response format, pagination behavior beyond schema defaults, or any potential limitations (e.g., result truncation). For a low-risk search tool, this is acceptable but not rich. No contradictions with annotations exist.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every clause contributes value: filtering options, document types, and coverage. There is zero filler or repetition of schema details.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not mention that results likely return metadata only, nor does it point to sibling tools (e.g., get_document_text) for full content. It does not describe pagination defaults (though schema covers this). Given the moderate complexity, the description is complete enough for basic selection but lacks guidance on post-search actions.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100% for all 10 parameters, so the schema alone fully documents each parameter. The description adds a high-level summary (full-text search, date ranges, agency/president filters) but does not introduce any new semantic nuance about parameter use. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage; no extra credit is warranted.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description starts with a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('all Federal Register documents'). It enumerates supported filters (full-text, date ranges, agency, president) and explicitly names document types (rules, proposed rules, notices, presidential documents). This clearly distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like search_executive_orders or search_proclamations.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description states 'Use for rules, proposed rules, notices, or presidential documents,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'for only executive orders, use search_executive_orders'), but given the sibling list, the intended context is implied. It would benefit from an explicit 'when not to use' but remains above average.

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

• search_executive_ordersA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of matching orders with title, signing date, and document links, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination behavior (despite page/per_page parameters), sorting, or any potential rate limits or authorization requirements, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence, directly front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a 7-parameter search tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides the core purpose and return type but omits important operational details like pagination defaults, result ordering, and how multiple filters combine. It is adequate for a basic understanding but incomplete for full autonomous invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, providing full parameter documentation. The description adds value by summarizing the key filter dimensions (president, year, date range, keyword) that map to the schema properties, but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. This is slightly above baseline.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states 'Search for executive orders by president, year, date range, or keyword,' clearly identifying the verb (search) and resource (executive orders), and lists specific filter criteria. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_executive_order or get_recent_executive_orders, which are retrieval-focused.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies when to use this tool: when searching for executive orders using filters like president, year, date, or keyword. It provides clear context about its use case but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use search_documents or search_proclamations.

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

• get_agenciesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly states the return content (name, slug, description) and the 'all' behavior, which informs the agent about the tool's output and scope. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or failure modes, but for a simple parameterless read tool, this is adequate.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and resource, then provides return details. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple parameterless list tool, the description covers the core behavior and return fields. It does not include a pointer to the sibling 'get_agency' for single-agency needs, but the tool is simple enough that the description is almost complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool's verb ('Get'), resource ('federal agencies'), and scope ('all'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_agency' which presumably fetches a single agency. It also names the return fields (name, slug, description).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage for listing all federal agencies but provides no explicit 'when to use' guidance or alternatives such as 'use get_agency for a specific agency.' With multiple sibling tools, a direct reference to the singular counterpart would improve clarity, but the scope is clear enough.

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

• get_document_textA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool returns full plain text and requires a prior get_document call to obtain the URL. However, it does not discuss error handling, output format beyond 'plain text', or any side effects. This is adequate but not rich, so a 3.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two short sentences, zero redundancy, front-loaded with the primary action. Excellent.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a single-parameter fetch tool, the description covers the essential workflow: what it does and how to get the input. It doesn't need to explain return values since there is no output schema, but it could mention error cases. Complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema covers 100% with a clear description, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds the workflow context of obtaining the URL from get_document, which provides additional semantic value. Thus a 4.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses the specific verb 'Fetch' with the resource 'full plain text content of a Federal Register document', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_document which provides metadata. It also includes the prerequisite step, reinforcing its specific role.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly instructs to 'First use get_document to get the raw_text_url, then pass it here', providing clear when-to-use context. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, so it's a 4 rather than 5.

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

• get_executive_order_full_textA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool fetches the complete full text and enumerates the types of content it contains (policy language, directives, legal citations, implementation details), giving a clear picture of the returned data. It does not mention output format or potential limitations, but for a straightforward fetch-by-ID tool this is sufficient behavior disclosure.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences with the action verb and resource in the first sentence, immediately front-loaded. The second sentence justifies the tool's value by describing what the full text contains, with no filler or redundant phrasing.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns by describing the full text's components. It doesn't explain error behavior for nonexistent EO numbers, but that is a minor gap for such a simple request; the description is complete for practical agent use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter eo_number, including an example. The description only repeats 'by its EO number' without adding syntax, formatting, or edge-case information, so it adds minimal value beyond the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource (complete full text of a specific executive order) and the lookup key (EO number). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that the full text contains details 'not available in abstracts or titles', which sets it apart from get_executive_order or search tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies when to use this tool by highlighting the added value over abstracts/titles—when the agent needs detailed policy language, legal citations, and implementation details. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the contrast with abstracts/titles gives clear context for selection.

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

• get_recent_executive_ordersA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and notes the 30-day scope, but does not disclose potential limitations like pagination, result limits, or return format. This is acceptable for a simple list tool but not fully transparent.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the key action and timeframe. It contains no filler, and every phrase adds value—the second sentence provides a usage rationale.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the simple nature (zero parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential 'what' and 'when to use' adequately. It lacks details on return fields or ordering, but for a frequent-monitoring tool, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about schema details. The baseline of 4 for no parameters is appropriate, as the description adds a temporal concept (last 30 days) that is not in the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'executive orders signed in the last 30 days', clearly distinguishing this as a time-scoped retrieval tool. It differentiates from siblings like search_executive_orders (search all) and get_executive_order (single order) by the explicit recency window.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The phrase 'Useful for monitoring recent executive actions' provides a clear use case for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling list makes the differentiation implicit.

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