fr_public_inspection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it explains the temporal status (approved but not yet published) and defines 'special' filings as expedited/emergency. It does not describe response format or pagination, but given the annotations cover the safety profile, this is above average.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and immediately provides essential clarifications (temporal scope, special filings). No redundancy or 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 tool's simplicity (2 optional params, read-only, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what the tool lists, the temporal semantics, and the meaning of special filings. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but these are not critical for a forward-looking list tool. The description is adequately complete for an agent to decide whether to call it.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage: both 'type' and 'special_only' have descriptions. The tool description adds some context (e.g., 'special filings are expedited/emergency documents' which maps to special_only), but it does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents parameters well, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'List documents currently on public inspection' and immediately clarifies the meaning with 'approved for publication but NOT yet officially published'. It distinguishes this from published documents and calls it the 'forward-looking view', which sets it apart from sibling tools like fr_search_rules and fr_document_detail without naming them. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides strong context on when to use this tool: it is for documents that will appear in the Federal Register tomorrow or imminently, and it frames the use case as 'what regulations are about to come out?'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., for already-published rules), leaving the contrast to inference from the sibling list. This is a minor gap.

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