Search Title 38 CFR regulations

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: bm25 scoring direction (lower is better), citation-pinning behavior with the `direct: true` signal and `inResults` flag semantics, and FTS5 phrase-query handling where only the last token gets a prefix wildcard.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then usage, then the citation-pinning and phrase-query nuances in roughly descending priority. Dense and largely waste-free, though the final FTS5 sentence is long and detailed enough to test the bounds of conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still explains the non-obvious return fields (bm25, direct, inResults) that an agent needs to interpret hits, plus pagination behavior on pinned citations. Nothing needed to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: it explains `part` scoping with domain examples beyond the schema's terse 'restrict to one CFR part number', and describes how quoted `query` spans are tokenized into FTS5 phrase queries.

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 and resource ('Full-text search across the local Title 38 (VA) CFR index using ranked keyword matching') and implicitly distinguishes itself from get_section, which it names as the follow-up for reading full sections. An agent can tell what this does versus its siblings without opening any schema.

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 clear usage context: use `part` to scope results (with concrete examples '4' for ratings, '17' for prosthetics) and follow up with get_section to read a hit in full. It stops short of stating when-not to use it versus browse_title38 or list_parts, so no explicit exclusions.

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