where_does_term_appear

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses an important trait: 'fetches no regulation text at all' and calls itself a 'cheap orientation tool.' However, it leaves out how the date parameter affects behavior, result limits, or edge cases, so it is informative but not comprehensive.

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 tightly written sentences: the first states the purpose and output, the second gives the use case and a key behavioral trait. Every sentence earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter orientation tool, the description covers purpose, output shape, when to use it, and a key behavioral constraint. An output schema exists for return details. The main missing pieces are the date parameter semantics and explicit sibling routing, but these are minor relative to the overall clarity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It gives meaning to query by calling it a 'term' and by describing the output as containing titles/chapters/parts with hit counts, but the optional date parameter is never explained. This is a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Show which titles/chapters/parts contain a term, with hit counts.' It also frames the tool as a cheap orientation step before searching, which distinguishes it from search-oriented siblings like search_regulations.

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 gives a clear decision rule: 'Use this before searching when you don't know which part of the CFR governs a topic.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the intended context is concrete and actionable.

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