Search Documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, lowering the bar. The description adds the cross-tool dependency on 'agencies' for slugs and lists returned fields, but says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior beyond the schema's per_page, or total-count semantics, so the added behavioral value is modest.

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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded: purpose, filters, return shape, then a use-case hook. No sentence is filler and no critical detail is buried.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, yet it still summarizes them helpfully. For a 6-parameter, zero-required, filtered search tool with rich annotations, the main gap is guidance on result ordering and when to choose sibling tools.

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 each parameter (term, type enum, since/until, agency, per_page) is already documented with formats and examples. The description largely restates those same filters rather than adding syntax or edge-case meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (search) and resource (US Federal Register regulations and notices) plus the exact filter dimensions, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like document, recent_documents, and executive_orders without opening a schema. The use-case framing ('what did agency X publish about topic Y') further pins down 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?

It states clear usage context and an example question, and cross-references the 'agencies' tool for obtaining a valid agency slug, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of naming when to prefer recent_documents or executive_orders instead, so it lacks explicit exclusions/alternatives.

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