fr_document_detail

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false). The description adds value by enumerating the response contents (title, abstract, full text URL, agencies, CFR references, and more), helping an agent understand what will be returned. It does not cover errors or response formatting, but this is a minor gap given the simple read operation.

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 fluff. The first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose, and the second logically lists what it returns. Information is front-loaded and every word 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?

For a simple read-only tool with a single well-described parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it names the action, the input, and the output content. It does not mention not-found handling, but that is a minor omission for a detail-lookup 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the only parameter (document_number with an example format). The description merely references the parameter as part of the action without adding new semantic details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Get full details'), target resource ('specific Federal Register document'), and required identifier ('by document number'). It is clear in its purpose and implies a detail lookup, distinct from search tools like fr_search_rules, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent should call this when they have a document number and need full details. The description does not explicitly say when to use this vs alternatives or what to do if the number is unknown, but the purpose is inferable from 'by document number'.

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