fr_executive_orders

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already assures safe read-only behavior. The description adds the useful detail that coverage starts in 1994, which helps calibrate expectations, but does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or return format. With annotation support, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. Every clause ('search', 'filter by...', 'covers since 1994') adds useful information. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 is complete for a simple search tool: it defines the primary action, the key filter dimensions, and the data coverage window. Full schema documentation fills in parameter details. The lack of an output schema is fine, and the missing response format is not critical for this read-only look-up use case.

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 provides full descriptions for all five parameters, covering their meanings and defaults. The description's mention of 'filter by president, year, or keyword' simply restates the schema rather than adding new semantic context. Per the rubric, with 100% schema 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 clearly states the tool searches for presidential executive orders and names three filter dimensions (president, year, keyword) plus a coverage scope (since 1994). It is specific about the resource and action, but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from the sibling fr_presidential_documents, which likely covers the same or overlapping content.

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 conveys obvious usage context: when you want to search executive orders, use this tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when NOT to use it or which alternative tools (e.g., fr_presidential_documents, fr_search_rules) might be better suited for broader or more specific document types.

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