regulations_search_dockets

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with a read-only search operation. However, the description adds little behavioral context beyond the annotation. It does mention dockets represent rulemaking or non-rulemaking actions and includes a sort option, but does not disclose potential pagination behavior, result size limits, or any other operational details beyond what the schema provides.

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 concise and well-structured: one sentence for the tool's purpose, one sentence for context, and a final line for sort options. Every sentence adds information and there is no fluff or repetition of the input schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not explain what results look like, but this may be acceptable for a search tool. The description covers the domain concept (dockets) and mentions sort options, but does not provide usage examples, agency restrictions, or guidance on how to construct queries. Given the relatively simple search nature and complete schema, a 3 is reasonable.

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%, meaning all six parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, except for mentioning dockets represent rulemaking or non-rulemaking actions, which mirrors the docketType enum. The sort parameter examples ('title', '-title') are already implied by the enum values, so the description adds no significant semantic value. Baseline 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 clearly identifies the tool as searching for regulatory dockets and defines them as organizational folders containing related rules, comments, and documents. It distinctly explains what a docket is, which differentiates it from a general document search and sibling tools like regulations_search_documents or regulations_search_comments.

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 explains what dockets are but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to use regulations_search_dockets over regulations_search_documents or regulations_search_comments, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The use case is implied by the docket definition but not explicitly stated.

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