regulatory_fetch_docket_details

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

With no annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Verified source: Regulations.gov', 'Data freshness: 4-hour cache', and 'Token-efficient'. It also notes the output format (AI-Ready Markdown). However, it omits any mention of authentication, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 a single paragraph of 5 sentences, each adding unique value: purpose, return fields, source, cache, token efficiency, and an example. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 tool's simplicity (1 param) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers core functionality: what it does, what it returns, and source reliability. It could be improved by mentioning error handling or rate limits, but it is complete enough for basic usage.

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?

The only parameter, docket_id, is a required string. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds an example call 'fetch_docket_details('FDA-2023-N-0001')' which clarifies the expected format. This compensates for the lack of schema description.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'full details for a specific regulatory docket by ID'. It lists the returned fields (title, agency, status, etc.) and provides an example, distinguishing it from siblings like 'regulatory_fetch_federal_register_notices'.

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 usage when you have a docket ID and need full details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., regulatory_search_open_rulemakings). No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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