regulatory_fetch_federal_register_notices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint; the description reinforces these and adds further context: 'US federal only', 'Verified source: Federal Register API', and '4-hour cache'. This adds value beyond annotations without any contradiction.

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 but is densely packed with useful information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage, and every sentence adds value. While it could benefit from structural elements like bullet points, it remains concise and efficient.

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 (which likely covers return values), the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, parameters, output structure (document type, title, etc.), caching, and source. Minor details like pagination are not mentioned, but overall it is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing examples (e.g., 'SEC, Food and Drug Administration'), default behaviors ('defaults to all notices', 'defaults to last 90 days'), and format details (ISO 8601) that are not fully covered in the schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('Federal Register notices and rules'), and clearly states the scope ('for a specific agency'). It also distinguishes itself from a sibling tool by explicitly mentioning when to use an alternative for topic filtering across all agencies.

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 ('monitor recent regulatory activity for an agency') and provides a clear alternative ('Use regulatory_search_open_rulemakings instead when filtering by topic across all agencies'). It also gives instructions for handling insufficient responses by calling report_feedback.

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