regulations_docket_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the basic 'get' operation, but it does not contradict the annotations. With annotations present, a neutral score is appropriate.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence with the core purpose, resource type, and an illustrative example. No wasted words.

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 one-parameter read-only detail tool with annotations covering safety, the description provides enough context: it names the resource, the input, and the action. It remains somewhat vague about what 'detailed information' contains, but no output schema is required and this is a common detail-endpoint pattern.

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 documents docketId with an example, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description repeats the example format rather than adding meaning beyond the schema, placing it at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get detailed information'), the resource ('regulatory docket'), and the required input ('docket ID') with a concrete example. This distinguishes it from the sibling regulations_search_dockets (search-oriented) and regulations_document_detail (document-level).

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 implies usage when a docket ID is already known, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like regulations_search_dockets for discovering dockets. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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