ecfr_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the return format ('excerpt + section path + ecfrUrl'), which is helpful, but does not mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, or read-only status. More detail would improve 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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose, usage hints, and return format. No wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, gives usage examples, and mentions return values. It is largely complete, though a mention of pagination or filtering options would enhance completeness.

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 input schema has 3 parameters, with only titleNumber having a description. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for titleNumber (48 for FAR, 2 for federal financial assistance). However, it does not add meaning for query or perPage, so while helpful, it is not comprehensive.

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 the tool performs full-text search across the entire CFR, a specific resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by providing examples of titleNumber for specific regulations like FAR (48) and federal financial assistance (2), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear use case ('Use for compliance questions') and specific examples for titleNumber values. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings, which would strengthen guidance.

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