fr_document_detail

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's disclosure that it returns details is consistent but adds limited extra behavioral context. It lists return fields but does not mention potential errors, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description adds value but is not particularly rich beyond the annotation.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and list key return fields. Every word contributes; no fluff.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It lists the major return fields. However, it does not address what happens if the document number is invalid or missing, which would be helpful for error handling.

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 document_number has a schema description with an example format. The description mentions 'by document number' but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, this meets the baseline.

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 retrieves full details for a specific Federal Register document by document number, listing key return fields (title, abstract, full text URL, agencies, CFR references). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fr_search_rules and fr_agencies by focusing on a single document lookup.

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 indicates the tool is used when you have a specific document number, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., search tools) or note any prerequisites or exclusions. The context of sibling tools implies its role, but no direct guidance is provided.

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