fr_search_rules

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool searches for specific document types (proposed rules, final rules, notices), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or response format.

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 is front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by a concise usage suggestion.

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 search tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain output format, pagination, or defaults like per_page. However, the purpose is adequately conveyed for a straightforward search, earning a middle score.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already provides parameter semantics. The description does not add any additional meaning or relationships beyond what the schema offers, maintaining the baseline score of 3.

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 it searches for proposed rules, final rules, and agency notices in the Federal Register, and provides additional context of tracking regulatory activity. It is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like fr_document_detail or fr_agencies.

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 explicitly says 'Use to track regulatory activity by agencies,' giving a clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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