ecfr_search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a ranked EXCERPT (not full text), section path, and ecfrUrl. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional details about the output format.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value. No filler or tautology.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return structure (excerpt, section path, ecfrUrl). It also links to sibling tools for next steps. However, it does not mention pagination or perPage behavior, which is a minor gap.

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 33% (only titleNumber has a description). The description adds value by explaining titleNumber usage with examples (48 for FAR, 2 for financial assistance), but for query and perPage it provides no additional meaning beyond the schema's property definitions.

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 clearly states 'Full-text search across the entire CFR' with specific examples (titleNumber=48 for FAR, titleNumber=2 for financial assistance). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like far_clause_lookup and ecfr_get_section by emphasizing it returns excerpts for discovery.

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 explicitly says 'Use for DISCOVERY' and provides clear instructions for what to do after getting a hit: use far_clause_lookup for FAR/DFARS clauses, ecfr_get_section for other titles, or open the ecfrUrl. This gives excellent guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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