regulations_search_comments

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds the sort behavior and the nature of results (public comments). However, it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, default limits, or response format beyond what the schema provides, so additional behavioral context is limited.

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 well-structured: three sentences covering purpose, filters, and sort. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no fluff or redundant phrases.

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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear overview of functionality, filters, and sort. It could be more explicit about pagination or the response structure, but the schema already covers parameter details and the tool is relatively straightforward.

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?

All 8 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description merely summarizes the filter categories (keyword, agency, docket, date) and sort options, which repeats schema information without adding meaningful new semantics.

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 public comments on federal regulations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like document or docket searches. It also notes filters by keyword, agency, docket, or date, which further clarifies its specific scope.

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 the tool is for finding comments on proposed rules but does not explicitly mention alternatives like regulations_comment_detail or when not to use it. It provides useful filter and sort guidance, so the context is clear, but explicit exclusions or alternative references are absent.

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