Retrieve complete details for any U.S. regulatory document using its document ID, including agency, docket, and status.
Get detailed information for a specific regulatory document by its document ID (e.g. 'FDA-2009-N-0501-0012').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| documentId | Yes | Document ID (e.g. 'FDA-2009-N-0501-0012', 'EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0208-0001') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.4.11Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2026.3.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds little beyond that—it says 'detailed information' but doesn't disclose response structure, pagination, or any special behaviors. With annotations covering safety, the description's contribution is minimal but not contradictory.
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, clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then provides the input method and an example. Every word serves a purpose, and it is appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter.
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 detail-retrieval tool with one parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, but without an output schema, that is acceptable. The main gap is the lack of a pointer to how to obtain the document ID, which would improve context but is not critical.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the schema fully documents documentId. The description repeats an example that is already present in the schema's parameter description, adding no new meaning. Since schema handles semantics, the 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 the action ('Get') and object ('detailed information for a specific regulatory document') and specifies the input method ('by its document ID'). It distinguishes from sibling search tools implicitly by focusing on a specific ID, though it doesn't name alternatives. The verb and resource are precise, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies the agent must already have a document ID (likely from a search tool), but it doesn't state that condition or mention that regulations_search_documents is the appropriate companion for finding IDs. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.