fr_executive_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds the coverage constraint ('since 1994'), which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like pagination limits or potential rate limits, but the annotations cover the main safety profile, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then the key filters. It is concise with no wasted words, and the coverage note is a useful addition. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (optional filters only, no required params, no output schema), the description is adequate. It covers what the tool does and its scope. Missing details like pagination defaults are in the schema, and return format is not essential for a search tool without an output schema. The description is complete for basic invocation.

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%, with every parameter documented in the schema. The description adds a general note about filters (president, year, keyword) but does not add meaning beyond the schema. For example, it does not explain the 'president' slug format beyond what the schema already shows. Baseline 3 is correct since schema covers all details.

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's purpose: searching for presidential executive orders, with filters for president, year, or keyword, and a coverage range. It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('presidential executive orders'), making it distinct from many siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar search tools like 'fr_search_rules' or 'fr_presidential_documents', but the name and description are sufficient for basic understanding.

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 implies usage: when you need to search executive orders with filters. It does not state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions (e.g., when not to use it). Given there are many Federal Register tools (e.g., fr_search_rules, fr_document_detail), more guidance would help, but the description gives a clear use case.

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