search_executive_orders

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.