fed_register_list_agencies

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

No annotations are present, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (list) without mentioning any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return character beyond 'slugs'. This is insufficient for full 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 two concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and providing an immediate use case. No extraneous information.

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?

As a simple list tool, the description covers the main purpose and usage context. However, it omits details about the perPage parameter, return format, and any pagination behavior, which would improve completeness. The lack of output schema partly justifies less detail, but parameter coverage is a 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?

The input schema has one parameter (perPage) with no description, and the tool description does not mention it or provide any additional meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to clarify how the parameter affects results.

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 lists all Federal Register agencies with slugs, and explicitly ties it to fed_register_search_documents, differentiating it from sibling tools. The example usage reinforces the purpose.

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 (resolving slugs) and indicates the output is needed for another tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but gives enough context for appropriate usage.

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