fr_document_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by enumerating the return fields, but it does not discuss response format, potential errors, or any rate limiting. This adds some value beyond annotations, but not a lot, aligning with the get_calls calibration example.

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. It leads with the primary action and resource, then lists key return fields. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and minimal annotations. The description lists several return fields and states the input requirement, which is sufficient for a simple detail-fetch operation. It could be more complete by mentioning error handling (e.g., document not found), but for the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential information.

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 schema has 100% coverage: document_number includes a clear type and example ('2024-00001'). The description merely repeats 'by document number' without adding new meaning. Since the baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description provides no extra semantic detail, a 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details for a specific Federal Register document by document number.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like fr_search_rules or regulations_document_detail by focusing on fetching details for a specific document. The list of returned fields (title, abstract, full text URL, agencies, CFR references) further clarifies its scope.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you have a document number and need full details), but it does not explicitly mention how it differs from nearby tools such as fr_search_rules or fr_presidential_documents, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage guidance is therefore only implicit, not fully explicit.

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