fr_presidential_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only scope, not behavioral traits like result ordering, date filtering behavior, or pagination, so it adds modest context beyond annotations.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the general scope and examples are 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?

All parameters are fully documented in the schema and annotations cover safety, making the tool invokable. The missing return-shape or pagination details are not explained, but for a search tool with full schema coverage this is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters with types, descriptions, and an enum. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond enumerating document categories.

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 action ('Search') on a clearly bounded resource ('all presidential documents'), and enumerates document types that distinguish it from siblings like fr_executive_orders and fr_search_rules.

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?

Implies broad, cross-type use via 'all presidential documents' but never mentions alternatives or when to prefer a narrower sibling such as fr_executive_orders or fr_document_detail. No exclusions are stated, so context is clear but routing guidance is left implicit.

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