regulations_search_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it explains the sort options ('postedDate' asc/desc, newest first) and the default sort behavior. It also clarifies the semantic meaning of the date filters (posted on/after, posted on/before). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists filters, the third provides the sort syntax. Every sentence earns its place, and the sort information is presented clearly with examples.

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 search tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage: what it searches, how to filter, and how to sort. It doesn't mention pagination defaults (pageSize default 25) or the fact that all parameters are optional, but the schema covers those. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds a bit of context by grouping filters ('keyword, agency, docket, or date') and explaining the sort order, but it doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema. 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 the tool searches for public comments on federal regulations, with a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('public comments on federal regulations'), and scope ('Filter by keyword, agency, docket, or date'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like regulations_search_documents and regulations_comment_detail by focusing on comments and noting what the public said about proposed rules.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when searching for public comments on regulations, with filter options. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list includes regulations_search_documents and regulations_comment_detail, and the description's focus on comments implies the distinction. It could be improved by explicitly saying 'use regulations_comment_detail for a single comment' or similar.

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