regulatory_fetch_docket_details

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

The description discloses read-only nature, idempotency, US federal scope, timeout of 30 seconds, potential slowness for large dockets, 4-hour cache, and fallback source. Since annotations are absent, the description fully carries the burden and provides comprehensive behavioral information.

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 well-organized with clear sections, front-loaded key traits, and no wasted words. Each sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description still details return content (docket title, agency, status, etc.) and also includes usage guidance, fallback, and feedback mechanism. It is fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the format (agency format with examples) and stating it's required. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's simple string type.

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 it fetches full details for a specific regulatory docket by ID, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool regulatory_search_open_rulemakings by specifying when to use each.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you have a docket ID from a search') and when to use an alternative ('regulatory_search_open_rulemakings instead when you need to find dockets by topic first'). It also mentions timeout and cache behavior.

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