regulations_search_documents

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

The description accurately states it performs searches, aligning with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds value by detailing the scope (federal regulatory documents with rulemaking context) and filterable attributes, providing behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 remarkably concise: three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence and efficiently lists document types and sort options in the last. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the tool's purpose, filters, sorting, and document types. It does not explain pagination (pageSize, pageNumber) but the schema covers these. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool.

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 description summarizes filter options (agency, docket, date, keyword) and lists document types and sort orders, but these are already fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). It adds no new information beyond what is in the schema.

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 it searches for federal regulatory documents (proposed rules, final rules, supporting materials) and distinguishes itself from Federal Register data by providing rulemaking context. It lists specific document types and filter options, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 usage by mentioning it complements Federal Register data, suggesting it is best for broader regulatory context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternative search tools like fr_search_rules or other regulations_* tools.

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