Federal Register Monitor: New Rules & Comment Deadlines

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

Annotations only declare read-only, open-world, non-destructive, non-idempotent; the description adds substantial behavior the agent could not infer: it runs a specific Apify Actor on the caller's own account, bills $0.001 per document returned, does not charge per result on empty runs, caps spend via run_max_charge_usd (default $0.50), and typically completes in 5-15 s but can take minutes with a 300 s timeout ceiling. It also discloses the output envelope ({actor, count, items}) and the trimming behavior for long text.

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?

Front-loaded correctly: purpose, then sibling disambiguation, then usage, then parameters, then behavior. It is a dense single block and the mid-paragraph parameter enumeration duplicates schema content that is already 100% documented, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 14-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return field list (agentSummary, commentsCloseDate, commentDaysLeft, docketIds, commentUrl, etc.), the wrapper shape, and the cost/timeout failure modes. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining cost coupling not stated in the schema — 'run_max_items (default 50) limits items returned and fills maxResults when you leave it unset, so it also limits what is billed; setting maxResults higher can bill more than is returned.' Most other parameter mentions ('commentsOpenOnly=true keeps only open dockets') largely restate schema text, so it does not reach a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Track new US federal rules, proposed rules, notices and presidential documents from the official FederalRegister.gov API') and explicitly separates itself from two named siblings: 'Unlike grants_finder (assistance opportunities) and federal_contract_finder (awarded contracts), this monitors the Federal Register rulemaking feed.' An agent can disambiguate without opening any schema.

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?

Gives both positive routing ('Use when compliance, policy, lobbying or capture teams need new rules or open comment periods by keyword or agency') and explicit exclusions with named alternatives ('Do not use for grant RFPs (use grants_finder) or for awarded contract data (use federal_contract_finder)'). This is the full when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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