fr_search_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the scope of what is searched (proposed rules, final rules, agency notices) and the use case (tracking regulatory activity). It doesn't disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, or date-range semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the annotations carry the main behavioral burden.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the resource and document types; the second states the use case. Information is 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?

For a read-only search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what is searched and why you'd use it. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention the relationship to the fr_* sibling tools (e.g., fr_document_detail for retrieving full documents), but the annotations and schema cover the operational essentials.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 searches for proposed rules, final rules, and agency notices in the Federal Register, and explicitly mentions tracking regulatory activity by agencies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fr_executive_orders, fr_presidential_documents, fr_document_detail, and fr_public_inspection, which cover different document types or operations.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to track regulatory activity by agencies. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling list contains related tools (fr_executive_orders, fr_presidential_documents, fr_document_detail) and the description's focus on rules/notices implies the distinction. A 4 is appropriate because the context is clear but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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