regulations_search_dockets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context (dockets represent rulemaking/non-rulemaking actions) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, return format, or 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 reasonably concise: three sentences that define the resource and mention sort options. The first sentence front-loads the purpose. The third sentence on sorting is slightly redundant with the schema enum, but not excessive.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (6 optional params, no output schema), the description explains what dockets are but omits details about result structure, how to combine filters, or how this search relates to the sibling document/comment search tools. Annotations cover safety, so the description is adequate but not complete for a full understanding of expected results.

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 each parameter already has adequate documentation. The description repeats the sort enum values ('title', '-title') but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does not elaborate on how parameters combine or any additional constraints.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Search for regulatory dockets') and defines what dockets are (folders containing rules, comments, documents). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like regulations_search_documents or regulations_search_comments, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this searches at the docket level, while sibling tools search documents/comments, or when to use regulations_docket_detail subsequently. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the definition of dockets.

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