ecfr_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that results include sections with titles, parts, and context snippets, and explains the CFR is organized into 50 titles. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded with the action and outcome in the first sentence. The second sentence provides useful background about CFR organization without padding. Each sentence serves a purpose, and the overall length is appropriate for a search tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return value. It states that matching sections with titles, parts, and snippets are returned. Pagination behavior is not described, but the schema covers page and limit parameters. Overall, adequate for a search tool with clear scope.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides for query, page, and limit. It only mentions 'by keyword,' which aligns with the query parameter but doesn't enhance it.

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 a specific verb 'Search' and names the resource 'Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),' then states the output: matching regulation sections with titles, parts, and context snippets. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ecfr_title_structure and ecfr_section, which focus on structural retrieval.

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 gives clear context that this is a keyword-based search across all 50 CFR titles, implying use for topical queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the CFR organization background helps an agent understand scope. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so not a 5.

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