fr_presidential_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the scope of document types covered, which is useful context. It does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, result ordering, or any limitations, but the read-only nature is already conveyed by annotations and the verb 'Search.' No contradiction.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and scope. It wastes no words and provides all necessary high-level information in a compact form.

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?

This is a straightforward search tool with no required parameters and a well-described schema. The description adequately conveys the core purpose and coverage, though it does not explain return value structure or pagination in the absence of an output schema. For the tool's complexity, this is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 every parameter (keyword, doc_type, start_date, end_date, president, per_page) already has a descriptive definition. The description only lists document types that mirror the doc_type enum and adds no additional parameter-level meaning, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' with the resource 'all presidential documents' and enumerates document subtypes (executive orders, memoranda, proclamations, other presidential actions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fr_executive_orders (which targets a subset) and fr_search_rules (which targets rules).

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 clearly states it searches 'all presidential documents,' giving an implicit sense of when to use it as a comprehensive search tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use a more specific tool (e.g., fr_executive_orders for executive orders only), so it lacks exclusions.

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