get_document

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.