regulations_docket_detail

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a read operation. The description adds 'Get detailed information' but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide (e.g., no mention of what 'detailed information' includes, no error conditions, no rate limits).

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and includes an example. No unnecessary words; every part 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should convey what 'detailed information' entails. It is vague; while the tool is simple, the description could be more informative about the nature of docket details (e.g., title, status, dates).

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 provides a description for docketId, and the description adds a concrete example ('EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0129'), clarifying the expected format. This adds value beyond the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('regulatory docket'), and provides an example docket ID. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like regulations_search_dockets (which searches multiple) and regulations_document_detail (for documents).

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 use when one has a docket ID ('by its docket ID'), but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor mention alternatives (e.g., searching for dockets first). No exclusions or context for when not to use.

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