Recent Documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and mutability are fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the look-back-window behavior, which is already restated in the schema, and says nothing about pagination limits or result ordering nuances.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action and scope front-loaded before the use-case hint. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains thin is pagination behavior and result ordering, but for a simple filtered-list tool the description is close to 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 all four parameters (days, type, agency, per_page) are already documented with defaults, max values, and an enum. The description's mention of type/agency filtering and the look-back window merely mirrors the schema rather than extending it (e.g., no guidance on agency slug format beyond a pointer to a sibling tool that the schema already provides).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the most recent Federal Register documents') plus the scoping mechanism ('over a look-back window') and optional filters. The recency framing implicitly separates it from the sibling search_documents, so an agent can route between them without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a clear intended use case: monitoring newly published rules/notices from an agency. However, it never explicitly names search_documents as the alternative or states when to prefer full-text search over this recency listing, so the when-not guidance is absent.

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