regulatory_fetch_docket_details

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

Description adds 'Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent.' and mentions timeout (30 seconds), cache (4-hour), and fallback to Federal Register, going beyond the annotations which already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint.

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?

Well-structured and concise; starts with main action, then key properties, usage guidance, and additional details. Every sentence adds value. No redundancy.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is thorough: lists return fields, mentions cache, timeout, fallback, and includes feedback mechanism for gaps.

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?

Only one parameter docket_id with schema description. Tool description adds examples and format clarification ('e.g. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317 or FTC-2024-0041'). Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3, with enhancement.

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 'Fetch full details for a specific regulatory docket by ID' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tool regulatory_search_open_rulemakings by noting 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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when you have a docket ID from a search' and 'Use regulatory_search_open_rulemakings instead when you need to find dockets by topic first.' Provides clear context and alternatives.

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