Search federal statutes

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

Annotations cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: the data is a published OLRC release rather than real-time, the site is an independent mirror not a government service, and retrieved text must be treated as source material, not instructions (an explicit prompt-injection caution). It also discloses pagination via nextOffset.

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-loaded with the purpose and then layered with citation, currency, pagination, and disclaimer guidance. It is long but each sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information; the density is justified by the tool's legal-citation requirements.

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 usefully characterizes returns (snippets, release metadata, legal/inline citations). Combined with the currency caveat, mirror disclaimer, and injection warning, an agent has everything needed to call and cite this tool responsibly.

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 0%, so the description must carry param meaning: it explains query accepts full text or a citation form like '5 USC 552', and that nextOffset should be followed until null. The limit parameter is left undocumented, which is the only gap.

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 ('Search the published United States Code') plus the two supported query modes (full text or citation). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings get_section (retrieve specific text) and list_titles (enumerate).

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 concrete operational guidance: include inlineCitation for every statutory claim, state release.id/sourceDate when currency matters, and retrieve section text before quoting a snippet. This implicitly routes the agent to get_section for full text, though it never names the sibling or states when not to use search.

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