search_regulations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses a key limitation: results are only citations, headings, and short snippets, and never full text. It does not explain filtering semantics or rate limits, but the most important behavioral trait is stated directly.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, immediately states the output limitation, and gives a concise actionable follow-up.

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?

The description is adequate for launching a search and understanding the snippet-only limitation, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, it does not explain the optional filters (date, title, agency), default limit behavior, or how it differs from the sibling where_does_term_appear, leaving some room for agent confusion.

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 adds no parameter-specific guidance. Schema description coverage is only 40%, covering title and agency, while query, date, and limit are essentially undocumented. The tool name implies query is the search term, but date format, limit behavior, and filter interactions are left unexplained.

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 identifies a precise verb ('Full-text search'), a clear resource ('the CFR'), and the scope ('across the CFR'). It differentiates the tool from sibling lookup_citation by explicitly stating that it returns only citations, headings, and snippets, not full text.

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 explicitly tells the agent to follow up with lookup_citation to read full text, which clarifies when to use this tool versus that sibling. However, it does not address alternatives like where_does_term_appear or specify when to use them instead, so the guidance is incomplete across all siblings.

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