fed_register_search_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about document types and filters but does not elaborate on behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or the nature of results (e.g., summary vs. full text). Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds moderate value.

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, consisting of two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action and resource, then provides a usage example. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is efficient.

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?

The description covers the essential functionality and provides a concrete use case. Although there is no output schema, the openWorldHint annotation suggests the tool returns results in a standard format. The description does not explain pagination or result details, but for a search tool with 7 parameters, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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 71% (5 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description reiterates the filter parameters (query, agency, type, date range) but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. The 'perPage' parameter lacks a schema description and is not mentioned in the tool description. With high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool's action ('Search Federal Register documents') and specifies the resource types ('proposed rules, final rules, notices, presidential documents'). It lists key filtering criteria (query, agency, type, date range) and provides a concrete example. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which cover other registries or data sources.

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 includes a clear usage context ('Use for regulatory-context queries') and a specific example ('what new VA cybersecurity rules came out this quarter?'). While it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool, the provided guidance is sufficient for an agent to select this tool over siblings like 'ecfr_search' or 'regulations_search_documents'.

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