search_regulations_law

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses pricing ('FREE, no payment and no key'), output fields (title, agency, date, provenance URL, record_id), and the paywall model (call get_record to buy the full document). This is substantial context beyond a typical tool description.

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 longer than two sentences but every sentence adds distinct value: pricing, sources, output, paywall, use cases, and sibling distinction. Slight redundancy ('FREE' and 'no payment and no key') but overall efficient and 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 broad search tool with vague schema and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains what is searched, what is returned, how to access full documents, and when to use alternatives. Minor gaps exist (e.g., pagination or sorting) but they are not crucial for initial selection.

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 schema has only one parameter 'query' with zero description coverage. The description adds 'keyword(s) to search,' which is minimal and not enough to clarify query syntax, boolean operators, or how the query is applied across the multiple sources. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate more than it does.

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 US federal regulations and sources like eCFR, Federal Register, Congress.gov, Regulations.gov, and GovInfo. It specifies a focused question ('what does US federal regulation say about this, and what is being changed') and explicitly distinguishes from search_legal_cases, ensuring no confusion with sibling tools.

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?

Explicit use cases are provided: 'For regulatory compliance, policy monitoring, and rulemaking research.' Also gives an alternative: 'Court opinions are a separate tool: call search_legal_cases for case law,' which tells the agent when NOT to use this tool and where to go instead.

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