regulations_document_detail

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ID example and the notion of 'detailed information', but does not disclose output structure, pagination, or any other behavioral traits. It neither contradicts annotations nor goes beyond the baseline.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. No fluff or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter detail lookup with readOnlyHint, the description is adequate. It lacks output format details, but the tool's simplicity and the clear ID example make it sufficiently complete. Slightly more detail on what 'detailed information' includes could push it to 5, but it is not a significant gap.

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 single parameter documentId is fully described in the schema with an example, and the description repeats that example. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('detailed information for a specific regulatory document') with a concrete ID format and example. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like regulations_search_documents and docket-level tools.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you have a document ID and need full details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the ID-scoped nature is clear.

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