govinfo_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the collection list and mentions 'across all government publications', which is useful, but it doesn't disclose pagination, rate limits, or response format. The bar is lowered due to annotations, and the added context is modest.

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 no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists the collections. 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 simple search tool with four well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope and collections. It could mention that results are paginated (since page_size is a parameter) or clarify the exact return structure, but these are minor gaps for a search tool of this simplicity.

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 all parameters (query, congress, page_size, collection) are already documented. The description repeats the collection values in prose, but this adds little beyond the schema. With full coverage, a 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 a search action across government publications and lists specific collections (BILLS, PLAW, CRPT, etc.), making the resource and scope explicit. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like govinfo_bill_text or congress_search_bills, which target specific document types, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this general search versus more specific sibling tools. The description implies broad coverage but doesn't state exclusions or recommend alternatives (e.g., 'for bill text use govinfo_bill_text'). An agent would have to infer usage from the description alone.

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