regulations_search_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about complementing Federal Register data and lists document types/sort options, which is extra behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, with two sentences of purpose and a brief list of document types and sort options. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and does not include unnecessary fluff, though the list of document types and sorts is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough guidance: it states what can be filtered, lists document types and sort options, and gives context on how it complements Federal Register. Pagination and defaults are covered in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for a search 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 10 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats document types and sort options but does not add deeper semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. It slightly reinforces the filter dimensions but does not compensate for anything missing.

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 federal regulatory documents (proposed rules, final rules, supporting materials) and lists filter dimensions. It differentiates from siblings like regulations_search_comments and regulations_search_dockets by specifying 'documents' and noting it complements Federal Register data.

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 on what the tool is used for and mentions it complements Federal Register data, implying when it might be preferred. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer.

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