fr_suggested_searches

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by specifying exactly what the returned topic bundles contain: document counts from the last year and the number of currently open comment periods. It also lists the available sections, which clarifies the tool's coverage. The read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations are consistent with the description.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every sentence adds meaningful context without filler, and the explicit section list is compactly presented.

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?

The description is complete for a simple, optional-parameter list tool with two optional parameters and rich annotations covering safety semantics. It clearly states what is returned, what the sections are, and why an agent would use it, with no major gaps beyond an explicit default-behavior statement.

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 already covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds little extra meaning. The description does repeat the section enum values and the open-comment concept, but it does not clarify anything beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: discovering active regulatory topics and surfacing places where the public can still comment. It stops short of naming alternatives or saying when not to use sibling tools like fr_search_rules or fr_document_detail, so it earns strong but not full marks.

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