watch_federal_register

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the paid nature ($0.005), the required wallet key, the return fields, and the ordering (newest first). It also mentions the empty-query behavior. This exceeds minimal transparency, though it could mention rate limits or pagination.

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 one concise sentence, yet packs in cost, topic, types, output fields, and null-query behavior. No fluff or unnecessary words. It's well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description provides cost, auth requirement, and output details, plus the empty-query fallback. It lacks info on limits, errors, or date ranges, but for a simple search, it's adequately complete. The absence of annotations raises the bar, and it meets it reasonably.

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?

The single parameter q is clearly described as a search term with an example ('stablecoin'). The description explains that an empty query returns government-wide results, which fully covers the optional parameter's semantics. Schema coverage is 100%.

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 tool returns the newest US regulations and official notices matching a topic, with specific content types (proposed/final rules, executive orders, notices) and output fields (agency, date, abstract, links). This differentiates it from siblings like search_federal_contracts or get_congress_trades, which focus on different domains.

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 tells when to use it (to get regulatory updates on a topic) and notes the optional query (empty returns latest government-wide). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the sibling list and domain-specific wording imply it's the go-to for federal regulations. It also warns about cost and wallet key requirement, adding practical context.

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