Browse the CFR structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the hierarchy shape being navigated and the no-argument default returning chapters. It stops short of disclosing deep-level behavior (e.g., what happens with an unknown part).

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The hierarchy shape is front-loaded, followed immediately by the default no-argument behavior and the recommended use. Every clause earns its place.

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 and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what's needed to invoke correctly, including the zero-argument default. The only meaningful gap is not clarifying its boundary against the overlapping list_parts sibling.

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 chapter/part/subpart semantics and the 'requires part' constraint are already documented in the schema. The description restates the hierarchy order but adds no format, valid-value, or error-handling detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Navigate') and resource ('Title 38 hierarchy'), and enumerates the path shape (title → chapter → part → subpart) plus the listing behavior. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_parts, which appears to overlap in scope, so it falls short of the 5-level sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives a clear use case: 'Use this to discover valid parts/subparts before searching', which positions it ahead of search_regulations. However, it never names the overlapping sibling list_parts or states when browsing is preferred over it, so no explicit alternative is given.

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