search_documents

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.