govinfo_search

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description aligns with that. The description adds context about the scope and collection codes, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like result format, pagination, or rate limits. With annotations covering safety, this level of detail is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated in the first sentence and collection abbreviations listed in a follow-up line. Every sentence adds value without fluff or redundancy, making it highly readable and efficient.

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?

For a search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description gives essential context about what is searched and available collections. It does not detail response structure or pagination, but the scope and collection list are sufficient for a basic search tool. Given it is not overly complex, this feels fairly complete.

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 repeats the collection codes and their expansions (e.g., 'PLAW (public laws)') which the schema already provides, adding minimal new meaning. No extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema covers are provided.

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 across all government publications, listing specific collection types (BILLS, PLAW, CRPT, etc.). This identifies the resource and scope, distinguishing it from most sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other govinfo-related tools like govinfo_bill_text.

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 broad search use case ('Search across all government publications') and enumerates collections, giving context on when this tool is appropriate. It does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools, so usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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