regulations_search_documents

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: pagination behavior (hard cap, ceiling note), honesty of totalAvailable vs capped totalPages, error handling (genuine-empty vs outage/4xx throws), and how to reach more records. No contradiction with annotations.

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 relatively long but every sentence earns its place by providing critical usage information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then systematically covers parameters, pagination, and error behavior. Minor redundancy (e.g., mentioning 'flagship' is not essential) could be trimmed, but overall it is well-structured and 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?

Given no output schema, the description explicitly documents the return structure (documents array with fields like id, documentType, title, etc.) and the meta object behavior (totalElements as exact total). It also covers all parameters, pagination limits, and error states (genuine-empty vs outage). This is comprehensive for a complex search tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but this description adds significant value: it clarifies the relationship between query and searchTerm (aliases), explains sort options (default, live-verified set), describes pageNumber hard cap as 'HARD cap', details date format (YYYY-MM-DD), and interprets withinCommentPeriod as 'documents only'. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Search Regulations.gov rulemaking DOCUMENTS (rules, proposed rules, notices)' which uses a specific verb and resource, and immediately distinguishes from sibling tools like regulations_search_comments (for comments) and regulations_search_dockets (for dockets). The explicit enumeration of document types ensures clear 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 explains when to use this tool (search for rulemaking documents) and provides important usage constraints: pageNumber hard cap at 40, pageSize range, and alternative strategies (narrow filters / seek by lastModifiedDate) when the ceiling is reached. It could be more explicit about when to prefer sibling tools, but the context is clear enough.

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