regulatory_search_open_rulemakings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'US federal only', '4-hour cache', 'Verified source', and a feedback mechanism if results are unsatisfactory. Some redundancy with annotations but still adds value.

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 with front-loaded purpose, parameter list, usage guidance, and feedback mechanism. Some redundancy (e.g., 'Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent.' repeated from annotations) but overall 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?

With an output schema present, the description appropriately summarizes return fields (title, agency, comment deadline, etc.). It also addresses error handling via report_feedback. Covers all necessary context for a simple query tool.

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 coverage is 100%; the description repeats parameter info found in the schema (keyword required, agency optional, status optional with default) but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Search open rulemakings and public comment periods'), specifies the resource (Regulations.gov and Federal Register), and distinguishes from a sibling tool (regulatory_fetch_docket_details) 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 advises when to use this tool ('when monitoring regulatory activity on a topic') and when to use an alternative ('when you have a docket ID and need full detail'). Also notes caching and source verification.

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