fr_search_rules

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

With readOnlyHint=true already provided in annotations, the description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination behavior, result ordering, rate limits, or any limitations. It merely restates the search scope, which is already captured by the schema's doc_type enum. Thus, the description fails to add meaningful transparency beyond the annotation.

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 main action and followed by a practical use case. Every word earns its place, with 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 7 optional parameters and no output schema, meaning the description should clarify what the response contains. It does not mention return format, default behavior, or any constraints. While the purpose is clear, the coverage of runtime behavior is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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% description coverage for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but given the schema is thorough, no additional explanation is necessary.

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 proposed rules, final rules, and agency notices in the Federal Register, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fr_executive_orders and fr_presidential_documents by covering the core regulatory document types.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use to track regulatory activity by agencies.' This gives context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions like 'for executive orders, use fr_executive_orders instead.'

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