regulations_search_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds sorting behavior (sort field with asc/desc) but does not disclose pagination behavior beyond schema-defined pageSize/pageNumber, rate limits, or data provenance. The added sort detail is useful but minimal.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, filters, sort. Front-loaded with the core action, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value without extraneous detail.

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?

No output schema; description lacks return value details. For a search tool with 8 parameters, more context on response structure (e.g., fields returned, pagination metadata) would improve completeness, but the basics are covered.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description mentions filters but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 'Search for public comments on federal regulations', specifying the action and resource. It mentions filtering by keyword, agency, docket, or date, and sort options, distinguishing it from sibling tools like regulations_comment_detail or regulations_search_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. While the tool's name and description imply it's for searching comments, it doesn't mention when to use other search tools (e.g., regulations_search_documents) or provide exclusion criteria.

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